Question Very nice. The whites appear rather murky, though, if the flower really is white. Could we have a levels-corrected version? --MichaelMaggs10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember, the reproduction of the whites is pretty faithful. See this picture for more context on the plant itself. I'm pretty sure that most of the "murk" is the underlying pink color showing through. Notice how alternating petals are darker than the others? -- Ram-Man11:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info The edit expands (brightens) the whites up to 100% of the tonal range. A very small number of pixels in the right two petals were clipped, but this should be invisible. I'm not sure if this edit reproduces reality better or worse than the other edit. -- Ram-Man20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Excellent quality, sharp focus on the centre of the flower. But the subject can hardly breathe with such a tight framing (I remember saying this another time, when was it?...) - Alvesgaspar21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm either going to have to change my style or give up on ever not getting opposed by you. I think I'll probably take the oppose. Sorry, artistic choice! -- Ram-Man23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 04:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Support
Question Very nice. The whites appear rather murky, though, if the flower really is white. Could we have a levels-corrected version? --MichaelMaggs 10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
for the original nominated picture since the edit looks better. -- Ram-Man 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Excellent quality, sharp focus on the centre of the flower. But the subject can hardly breathe with such a tight framing (I remember saying this another time, when was it?...) - Alvesgaspar 21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
