Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bridal pink - morwell rose garden.jpg

Bridal Pink[edit]

"Strike while the iron is hot" said the blacksmith to his apprentice. Well Fcb has raised the challenge of replacing the delisted rose image. However I feel (full bias acknowledgement) that my image is superior. Shot just after dawn while on school camp, for an opportunistic shot while the others were still eating breakfast I think it came out quite nicely. The composition is enhanced by the unopened buds framing the center bloom. The glistening morning dew drops help too! :). Oh and before people oppose because it is a "common flower", please note there is nothing in the criteria which excludes roses from becoming FP's. Sure we don't want a flood of images, but we should have at least one.

Appears in Rose and Hybrid Tea Rose

Support Self Nom --Fir0002 07:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In thumbnail it looks like there could be blown highlights, but at full resolution I can't see anything wrong. Maybe it's just the lighter color of the flower against the darker background that fooled me... Very encyclopedic as it shows the full flower as well as the buds. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-08-01 13:13Z
Strong Oppose both In my opinion half of the rose is out of focus (including the middle). In my opinion the rose does not look fresh, buds are distracting and one of them is out of focus, while the other streched to the rose herself. In my opinion the picture has no encyclopedic value. The other rose (which, in my opinion, has much better artistic quality and value) nomination is only one nomination down, which, in my opinion, show how common the flower is. In other words I see absolutely nothing special in that image.--Mbz1 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
- What sort of image would you consider to be of encyclopedic value for the articles Rose and Hybrid Tea Rose? A diagram maybe? —

BRIAN0918 • 2007-08-01 15:41Z

- - Maybe an image of a wild, rare hard-to-find rose would do it for me. The thing is that roses are so common, so easy to photograph even with a point and shot camera, so many pictures with free licence are available at the NET that in my opinion an image of an rose should be something really,really special to make it FP. Today or tomorow or in a few days somebody will post a better picture of a rose (maybe somebody already did). Should we oppose it because that one was promoted, should we delist that one to promote another one? What I'm trying to say there are endless images of roses are available everywhere. In my opinion FP in general should be made out of much more unique and rare images. I hope I answered your question. Please feel free to ask me, if you have some more. --Mbz1 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Nowhere does the featured picture criteria state that the image needs to be of something exotic. For instance, images like these #1, #2 . #3, #4, #5, are all featured pictures of everyday objects. It dosen't matter how diffucult the shot or uncommon the subject is, the main concerns is that it is technically sound and helps a reader understanding the article. I'm sorry your fogbow image didn't pass, but using your misguided understanding of featured picture criteria is not fair to the other featured picture candidates. Cacophony 18:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the statememt above. It speaks for itself. No reply is needed. --Mbz1 20:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Well no, Cacophony raises a valid point, there is nothing in the criteria excluding common subjects and you can't just make up your own rules for voting. Please note that we have no FP of a rose at the moment but we do have an FP of a lemon. Equally common subjects, and as long as they are of high quality, have good enc value and are aesthetically pleasing they are perfect candidates for FP. Rarity of the subject may bring allowances for poor technical quality, but that's about it. Please note too that we have many featured articles of commons subjects (such as cheese) and we can't have a double standard for photos --Fir0002 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try explain my opinion one more time. Number 5 of Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria states: Adds value to an article. There are quite of few pictures of roses in thearticle one is better than another. There are many other pictures of roses all around Wikipedia. In my opinion the nominated images do not add any more value to the article than other pictures in the same article do, or the one nominated below, which you removed in order to place yours instead. I also cannot agree with the stement: "aesthetically pleasing" is a reason to support the image. Number 3 of Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria states just the opposite: A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Number 3 of Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria also states: Is among Wikipedia's best work. If I'm allowed to have my own opinion, I do not consider the images to be even close to Wikipedia best work. Number 3 of Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria also states: It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. As a matter of fact it kind of prooves my point about common subjects that everybody saw, smelled, tried and so on in real life. I'm not sure how the image of Red capsicum

sitting on a piece of white paper, for example, could make me to want to know more about Red capsicum than I already know. To me it is just a pepper on paper and nothing more. By the way there are plenty of more no value(in my opinion) images displayed at the same page I took that Red capsicum from. Looking at your images of the rose does not make me to want to know more, even after I've used eyeglasses. Would it be very wrong, if I'd say that in my opinion not all articles of common subjects should be represented in FP? Please note that my opinion count is only a single vote. It seems to me that cacophony's point would have been much more stronger, if he just supported your image. I hope he will. If one of your images is to pass, it is fine with me - one more no value (in my opinion) picture from the same user, one less, who cares .Good luck and have a nice day. --Mbz1 01:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Oppose It is a bit overexposed, the DOF is too tight, the specimen is rather unappealing. (here I too may be biased) : \ -Fcb981 16:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded an edit where I've recovered the blown areas from the RAW file - if you look at the histogram it's perfect exposure now. Also shot at f/8 it has good DOF w/o compromising the background (a in focus background is very distracting) --Fir0002 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I have no problems with the exposure or the focus (DOF is a little tight, but better than the other rose), but I really dislike the lighting and the shadow on the upper part of the flower. The texture just isn't there. Shadows are fairly harsh, not too bad, but prominent, giving a sort of flash-picture feel. I know that I'm not the first to say this, but roses are very common, and it wouldn't take that much more to perfect this one and make it featured. J Are you green? 18:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, personally I feel the lighting is one of it's strengths - as I mentioned above it was taken just after dawn and this gives it great lighting. Remember without shadows an image becomes flat and formless. You need good shadows to give depth and a bit of "3D" --Fir0002 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, shadows from the texture give depth. It's not these but the shadow from the bud on the right that I dislike. I have no problem with shadows, but those from objects not the subject don't really add anything. And given that the lighting is supposed to provide depth, I find the surface of the rose surprisingly flat. Admittedly, it's not too big a problem, hence the weak vote. J Are you green? 01:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems to me to fit all of the FPC criteria. Spikebrennan 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think this is a perfectly suitable subject for an FP, but the DOF is too narrow, and it should be an easily-reproducible shot. --TotoBaggins 20:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Number 3 of Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria states: It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. I'll be very grateful, if some of you could share with me how looking at the images makes you to want to know more about the subject. Thank you. --Mbz1 04:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
- Well, if I had never seen a rose before, this would certainly be a good introduction. J Are you green? 02:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the response. I agree with you and I believe that somebody, who's never seen a rose (if of course that hypothetical somebody exists) before probably has never seen the Internet either. So, in my opinion, that images will not help that somebody to became more familiar with the subject just because he/she has no Internet access.--Mbz1 03:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose This is not the best possible picture of a rose. I agree with other opposes re technical and compositional issues. And, there's no "wow" here... --Janke | Talk 07:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It's nice, and very well photographed. I like it more than the one lower on the page. Actually, I think the lighting and dew droplets and DOF are all great - I simply think you choose a specimen of rose that isn't "A" quality, and so the overall effect doesn't grab me as much as it needs to for a full support. Zakolantern 23:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simply not the best example of a rose. Roguegeek (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]