Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Siberian Iris Iris sibirica Plants 2000px.jpg

Image:Siberian Iris Iris sibirica Plants 2000px.jpg, not featured

•  Info created and uploaded by Ram-Man - nominated by Simonizer 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support high quality, nice colours, good composition and something different to the thousands of "just the flower centered" pictures--Simonizer 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support This picture was shot at f/2.8 to blur the background. I have this at other apertures in case it's required, but I prefer this one. The plant is a meter or so tall. -- Ram-Man 15:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I like this one a lot better than the single flowers. --Digon3 15:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 18:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support and encyclopedic value of whole plants is higher, too. Berrucomons 07:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - composition --Karelj 19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - composition too. The image should have been better in landscape format, putting flowers within the middle vertical third. We need the missing top, but the bottom, while still necessary to the image, is boring ; the only to present the subject with correct composition would have been to use a landscape format, with a shot probably slightly from above, to reduce the height of the feets. It would have also given more focus and sharp details to the small flowers. Verdy p 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I have a landscape version, but the background is more distracting. 2) Vertical framing highlights the tall plants. In landscape, fewer pixels would be dedicated to the flowers since the view would be wider, lowering their sharpness. Vertical is better suited to a taxobox. 3) Instead of taking it straight on, a higher angle would introduce perspective distortion, decreasing its value. 4) A smaller aperture increases flower sharpness at the expense of background blur, as mentioned above. 5) What top is missing? -- Ram-Man 20:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose A very good record shot, but I don't feel the composition has the spark needed for FP status. --MichaelMaggs 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per above --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lerdsuwa 15:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Orlovic (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)