Oppose Though I don't think the composition is unoriginal, I don't like it. The flower is tilted and I think it would be better centered with a better crop. --Digon313:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support In fact, this is an excellent picture: good lighting, great DoF, perfect colors, and with encyclopedic relevance. It's tilted: so what? A lot of flowers in nature are just tilted. And what do you mean with 'unoriginal composition'? There are no many different manners to make a good picture of a flower! I agree with Digon3 and propose to crop the left side of the picture, although by doing so, it will be more 'classic' and even more 'unoriginal' in composition... -- MJJR19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picture was intended to solve the problems of this nomination where the flower was pointed to the outside of the picture, rather than the inside. In this picture the orientation of the cone was criticized because it didn't match reality. As for composition, there are many ways to show off an iris. No one way is correct since you can't show the entire flower in one picture. Cropping the picture (which is fine) will make it less compliant with the Rule of Thirds, making it, as you say, "unoriginal". -- Ram-Man19:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not only the flower is tilted but also the leaves, which gives a clear sensation of tilt. I really don't understand why the picture cannot be rotated, since it is such a beautiful colour composition. Alvesgaspar21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the example of the entire plant. The flowers (and leaves) tilt in all directions. You can see in the nominated picture that the leaves on the left are leaning left and the ones on the right are leaning right. Rotating would be possible, but there shouldn't be any reason to require it, since it naturally tilts. Some of the "tilt" isn't tilt at all, but the angle that the picture was taken at. I have iris pictures from different angles, but I like this particular one. -- Ram-Man21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is ultra-sharp, colors are perfect, and this looks more like an iris flower than the iris flowers in my garden! What else can we ask for? Berrucomons21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAll Versions Very unnatural looking as a result of the gaussian blur - the flower head is just floating there with no visible stem --Fir0002www02:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The stem was barely visible in the original, due to the angle that the image was taken at. It blends right into the background. You might as well say any photo is unnatural because it doesn't show infinite DoF. I took a version of this picture at f/2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, and 16. The background (including the stem) looks almost exactly like it does in the f/5.6 or f/8 image. The only difference between this image and the f/5.6 image is that all the petals are sharp. Would the f/5.6 image be acceptable as a FP? I doubt it. It's a photograph, it can't reproduce reality exactly. This picture is about the flower, not the stem. Its an f/16 foreground with a f/5.6 - f/8 background. I could reprocess the picture to keep the stem just a little bit less blurred, but it wouldn't really make much difference in the overall effect and it likely wouldn't change the outcome of a FP nom. -- Ram-Man03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you just upload an original unblurred image? I'm sorry but it looks very unnatural. And that's certainly not saying that a lack of infinite DOF is unrealistic, because for starters the eye doesn't have infinite DOF, and a picture taken at f/5.6 etc (not an aperture for macro) will have a natural gradation between in focus and out of focuse. This does not. --Fir0002www09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral- The reason of the tilt is well explained in the picture of the whole plant, at right. But not in either of the nominated versions, which look unnatural. Alvesgaspar00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The tilt of the flower matches the tilt of the leaves, which is shown in the whole plant as well. The only difference is the closeup view. -- Ram-Man00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely the problem, if the leaves were straight then people would realize that the flower was indeed not vertical. This way it looks as if the camera was tilted. Alvesgaspar01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a picture not be a FP because people make assumptions about it? There are two conclusions one can make: the camera was titled or the subject matter was tilted. Obviously the flower was tilted, but people making the wrong assumption out of ignorance is no reason to oppose. If it was rotated, they would make the wrong conclusion the flower wasn't tilted. Which is the bigger crime? Also, on the uncropped version you can see that while most leaves tilt to the right (since this was the right side of the plant), some of the leaves tilt to the left. It's only confusing if you don't pay close enough attention to detail. -- Ram-Man03:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've changed my vote to neutral (for now, still waiting for common sense to prevail) because of the exquisite colour and texture of the flower, and despite the unfortunate tilt. Looking at a photo of a beautiful flower is not an intelectual exercise, either we get "wowed" or we don't. - Alvesgaspar09:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An explanation about the lack of VALUE of this (and other) pictures is welcome. This is certainly one the best Commons pictures of this particular species (BTW, there are hundered of thousand of vegetal species in nature) Alvesgaspar18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe that Wikipedia is not a botanical encyclopedia and I believe it would be too specific, if Wikipedia dispayed "hundered of thousand of vegetal species in nature" on its pages. This particulal image shows a very, very common flower and that's why I see no VALUE in the image.--19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
This picture is currently nominated as a featured picture on the Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. The two projects have different guidelines as to what qualifies as a FP. Anrie14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say before you write about guidelines, Anrie, it would be nice, if you go to the top of that very page and read them, but, if you cannot, here they are:"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,beautiful does not always mean valuable." --Mbz122:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
There seems to be no chance of success here either, at 2 - 2. I may resubmit a later version that erases the problems that Fir0002 has with it. -- Ram-Man11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*
Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Support -- Ram-Man 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Unoriginal composition David.Monniaux 07:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)){kind=link}
-1){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Comment - Not only the flower is tilted but also the leaves, which gives a clear sensation of tilt. I really don't understand why the picture cannot be rotated, since it is such a beautiful colour composition. Alvesgaspar 21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Despite this being of high technical quality and beautiful, this version has no chance of success. -- Ram-Man 03:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Neutral- The reason of the tilt is well explained in the picture of the whole plant, at right. But not in either of the nominated versions, which look unnatural. Alvesgaspar 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
