Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pink twinged daisy on table.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image:Pink twinged daisy on table_edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Daisy

  •  Info created and uploaded by Jina Lee - edited and nominated by Ram-Man. 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info A cut daisy (Bellis perennis) flower on a table.
  •  Support The composition sets this above many other flower featured pictures. Perfect exposure: not to dark and the highlights are not blown. -- Ram-Man 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OpposeThe quality is great, but I do not feel that killing a wild flower is a right thing to do for creating the composition that "sets this above many other flower featured pictures."(I hope it was not done in a protected area). Besides I really see no value in the image. --Mbz1 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    • This is an extremely common flower, often considered an invasive species and grown in many private gardens. I really doubt it was a wild flower anyway. It was taken in the United States where it is an introduced, non-native species. They are very common cut flowers for use in flower arrangements. -- Ram-Man 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for explaining it to me, Ram-Man. Still my second point is valid - the flower is too comon for the picture to hav a value.--Mbz1 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
      • And we continue to disagree on what is "value". -- Ram-Man 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We sure do. It is actually very easy for me. First we should remember that we are at Wikipedia the free encyclopedia and not at a professional photo forum. For example that Golden Gate Bridge picture that I nominated could have some value but not because of the bridge, but because of the kind of interesting fog. Sure the Bridge is beautiful, but there so many pictures of the Bridge. I as a reader go to Wikipedia to learn and I as a reader could not care less, if for example few icebergs are out of focus, because it is unique and interesting picture taken in a very, very remote area. I as a reader probably will not even notice that things. Look how many beautiful high quality insects and flowers pictures are featured. There's no single aerial iceberg picture is featured and probably will not any time soon. It is great, when the value and the quality come together, but, if for some reason it cannot be achieved yet, for me as a reader the value is everything that matters. Besides, if a better picture on the subject will became available later, the other one could get delisted. I'd like to finish at the funny note: somebody told me once that even, if I took a picture of an alien in an alien ship, but the picture came out blurry, he would have voted against it. Oh, well.--Mbz1 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose i agree quality is good but i am not satisfied with the composition. The flower is right in the center of the photo. This makes pictures boring. If you would have left more free space on the right it might have been a great photo. --AngMoKio 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great picture: great colours and composition. Mbz1, this is not Wikipedia. I'm emphasising this, because it's something you've been told before. Anrie 12:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simonizer, Anrie, so what it is Wikimedia? Does it mean that Value of the picture does not matter? Please, go to the beginning of this very page and read:Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: almost all sunsets are pretty, and most such pictures are not essence different from others, nightshots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, BEATIFUL DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN VALUABLE.. (I'm emphasising this because it is a quote from Guidelines for nominators for Wikimedia FP.) Besides to me that paricular image is neither beatiful nor valuable, if of course Anrie would not mind me to have my own opinion. OK, Anrie? Thanks, Anrie. Oh, by the way, Anrie, could you please remind me what else I "was told before" and (what is even more important) by whom I "was told before".--Mbz1 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
      • Wikimedia is a media collection for various (current and future) projects - not only wikipedia.--AngMoKio 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks AngMoKio. And you, my dear Mbz1, are always putting value on a level with encyclopedic value. That might be true for wikipedia, but once again we are here at wikimedia, so value can be something different too. --Simonizer 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everybody, (including Anrie) you have won. Next time, when I oppose a no value picture I would write:"I do not see anything special in that picture." Do you believe it would be OK?--Mbz1 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Support Lovely composition and object, background tends to underexposure. --Bergwolf 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose too ordinary -psylexic
  •  Support --Jeses 09:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Exellent technical condition, acceptable composition. --Beyond silence 10:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Derbeth talk 09:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I can see this framed on my wall. a classic image. --Scrumshus 03:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --startaq 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but whoever did the chromatic abberration reduction on the image did a terrible job. It now looks like each petal has been smeared or blurred. You should have cloned in some background cutting the CA out. Aside from that dislike the grey object top LHS, dislike the browny arc mid LHS, and consider the image overall underexposed and lacking any punch/interest --Fir0002 www 06:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Composition and Ack Fir0002 on 4th sentence. --Digon3 talk 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support FYI this is not a cut flower; rather it is a very small weed "daisy", found in a field of grass, not the kind a florist would use. (Think buttercups and clovers...) They grow in patches in the grass, like weeds, and don't get much taller than a blade of grass, either. Jina Lee 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose In my opinion it has no 'wow'-factor and I find it uninteresting. -- Slaunger 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose so schön die Blume ist, aber hier fehlt mE die natürliche Umgebung. --Böhringer 20:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose composition --Wiki mouse 20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  -- Ram-Man 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn ==> Not featured. --MichaelMaggs 22:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Pink_twinged_daisy_on_table.jpg&oldid=6658335"