Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Celosia cristata (yellow toreador)

Celosia cristata (yellow toreador) [edit]

It shows the flower with details. I particularly like the focus on the object. Furthermore, the "development cycle" of the species is observable at the background. (are you guys buying that?) One possible problem is that the main subject is not at the center. Tried to get some help at peer review but nobody's there.

Also placed at page Celosia. The page itself needs lots of work but I sincerely believe the photo illustrates the page's subject well.

Nominate and support. - __earth ^(Talk) 09:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I'm too chicken to commit myself early :)) - it's certainly a good photo, but it actually lacks detail closeup - does it need a sharpen? By comparison, these plant photos are just that bit sharper and the flower in focus stands out more from the background. However, we should give someone else a go...:)Stevage 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the thumb version doesn't show much detail. The larger version at Image:CelosiaCristataYellowToreador.jpg is pretty sharp, considering that I focused on the crest, leaving the background blurred. But I'll try to sharpen it in Photoshop and see what will happen next. Thanks for the comment. __earth ^(Talk) 11:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A good photo. Very nice celosia, I'm not familiar with the cristata type, my family only grows plumosa, but this makes me more interested. ~~It could be cropped a bit more~~. --Pharaoh Hound 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Cropped version. Great, I'm happy with it! --Pharaoh Hound 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I would prefer deeper focus; makes me a little queasy as is. Mooveeguy 17:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I would prefer a tighter crop around the main flower or a deeper depth of field. If you want to keep the background, however, don't center the subject. howch e ng {chat} 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the cropped version? Is it better? __earth ^(Talk) 10:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, it's still not up to FP standards IMHO. Now I think it needs a shallower depth of field (yeah, I'm inconsistent). Good try, though. The subject matter is intriguing so maybe you can play around with the angles and depths of focus and see if you can't come up with something better. howch e ng {chat} 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like the pic a lot but not enough to see it as FP - Adrian Pingstone 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per howcheng. The flower doesn't really stand out, which gives the picture overall a relatively bland appearance. bcasterline t 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Mooveeguy. The image is just hard to look at. —Cuivi é nen (talk•contribs), Friday, 12 May 2006 @ 21:24 UTC
Support Edit 1 Never seen a flower as unique as that before -- BWF89 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose .. Image isn't clear.sikander 21:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flower photos need to be really exceptional. And I know I'm biased, but I much prefer the Tulip nomination below. Nice pic for it's article tho --Fir0002 www 04:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a wonderful flower and good photo, but unfortunately I can't support. The hi-res version shows the flower to be a bit unfocussed and with too much noise in the background. I tried sharpening it and got the flower way better, but it would take a fair bit of work to get both flower and bg right. BTW I would buy the 'development cycle' argument if everything in the bg wasn't so blurred at hi-res. --jjron 10:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]