Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:20070521 Pincushion Hakea Flower.jpg

Image:20070521 Pincushion Hakea Flower.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Ian Fieggen - uploaded by Ian Fieggen - nominated by Ian Fieggen --Ian Fieggen 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Ian Fieggen 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Wisnia6522 08:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose An interesting flower. It's a shame that the depth of field is so low. This is the type of image that would benefit from a tripod, a long shutter-speed and a small f-stop. --MichaelMaggs 09:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Geez, I did it deliberately with low depth of field to accentuate the flower against an otherwise busy background! Ian Fieggen 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment That was a good idea, but you made the DOF too shallow so that only a very small part of the flower is actually in focus. Lycaon 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Fair criticism. I guess saw it as a good shot from an encyclopaedic point of view rather than as an entrant into a photography contest.

•  Oppose The DoF is fine for a shot like this (See this example), but the quality is not that great. To my eyes it looks like the whole image was heavily noise reduced or somehow post-processed. The white parts have halos. Maybe this was just oversharpened bringing out the grain? The end result is not pretty, and it is visible at 2MP viewing. Plus, I'm missing the EXIF information. -- Ram-Man 22:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Looks like the consensus is against this photo, so I won't bother trying to convince you folks further. The perfectionist standards required are obviously way too high for anything but professional photographers with high-end cameras. That said, I'd just like to comment that the image was NOT sharpened or otherwise altered. Halos on white parts? That's just how things come out when you use early morning overcast natural light to photograph a flower with a half decent domestic digital camera. Ian Fieggen 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Oh, and it was me that removed the (superfluous and private) Exif info with my program, JPGExtra, though what bearing that has on the image I have no idea! Ian Fieggen 23:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• EXIF is hardly superfluous information, especially for macro shots. It isn't required, but it does help satisfy questions that may arise. For example, in some cases we might assume that DoF is too shallow, but in reality it is just a smaller object than we realize and the DoF is at a maximum. I don't oppose for lack of EXIF, but I may not support without the information. I only mention it because sometimes people will actually upload a version with EXIF when asked. Also, the emotional outburst is understandable, but if you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm the last person that would say you have to have a professional camera. I have 3 FPs from point-and-shoots, and heck, one of them was a POTY finalist. -- Ram-Man 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)