Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tricyrtis hirta - blossom side (aka).jpg

Hairy Toad Lily[edit]

This photo has great colours and sharpness - composition is also very good as it includes both the opened flower and a bud at the point of opening. Taken by Aka

Appears in Tricyrtis

Nominate and Support Either --Fir0002 04:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original over alternative. Crop too tight but bearable. Can we get some planty person to write a caption? Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed Caption: Tricyrtis <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">For those that don't get this: click here --Fir0002 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - German WP has more detail: [[de:Japanische Krötenlilie]<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">], as does Danish. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now - could some parts be a little sharpened?--Svetovid (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, poor depth-of-field, especially on the flower to the left. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh come on - shot at f/20 and still complaints on the DOF? Please have a bit of consideration of the technical limitations. It's not a case where a better image could be taken (beyond cutting lily and constructing a careful studio environment and using a focus bracket - which needless to say is rather extreme...) --Fir0002 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose The original is just bad, not more. Alternative 1 is not bad, but although nothing very good. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind citing what points of the featured picture criteria you think this picture fails? Calling this picture (and many of the others you have voted on) "bad" is a rather vague and ineffective argument. What specific quality problems do you think these pictures have? thegreen J Are you green? 02:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The focus is not accurate; so the picture is blurred. So in my opinion, the picture is in general impression disharmonious. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - the focus is near perfect. The blurring of the image is simply because you can't have everything in focus - and this is exacerbated in macro, and again exacerbated in DSLR cameras with their larger sensors. The blurring of the background is a natural and unavoidable result of focusing on the flower. --Fir0002 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The background, is quite good. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The background is not only unavoidable, but desirable. See bokeh. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support either Well done. Cacophony (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find it hard to see what's what, and get the feeling the photographer was hunting for a point of interest too. Garish lighting fails to distinguish the form of the individual petals and the background seems to be working against rather than with the subject. Oversharpening, with serious haloes everywhere, was the final straw for me, I'm afraid. --mikaul^talk 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt1. Nice pattern. —Scouter Sig 15:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Either version. Nice macro shots! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tricyrtis hirta - blossom top (aka).jpg MER-C 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]