Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oakleafspring

Oakleafspring

New spring white oak leaves are actually pink.

Unless people have had a chance to live close to a white oak tree, they are unlikely to know that its leaves are actually pink in the springtime (but brown in fall or winter). The common belief is that deciduous trees only change leaf color in the fall; the white oak also changes in the spring, making it a special tree for a yard.

Appears in White_oak.

The photo was taken in Princeton, NJ, in May of 2003 by my husband [Mark T. Widmer] using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 digital camera. There are no restrictions on its use.

• • Comment: I did not intend that the photo be considered as winner of a photography contest, which seems to be the only criterion being applied so far. It's background is smooth and pleasing to me and the leaf details are quite clear; I think it meets the other criteria (artistic merit not being the only one, supposedly). I request that people might consider it on merits of contributing to an article as well as in on ideals of photographic perspective (which I do not feel particularly qualified to judge).
    • Featured pictures are supposed to be the best that wikipedia has to offer. Artistic merit isn't the only criteria, but there's absolutely no reason an artisticly better picture couldn't be taken to convey the same information Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, one of your reasons for nominating this is to show how the leaves are pink in spring, right? There's no way from this photo that I can tell it's spring. I could be looking at a leaf in summer or autumn and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The tree is in your yard, right? Have another go at it and see if you can bring us something special. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The metadata tag says it was taken on May 4. --Tewy 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You say that "the leaf details are quite clear", which isn't true. All but a small portion of the leaf is out of focus, making it difficult to see any details. A clear subject is important to voters. Good qualities of this photograph are the limited grain and vibrant colors, but those qualities aren't enough to make up for an image that is almost completely out of focus. --Tewy 21:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Nominate and support. - Harborsparrow 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Shallow DOF means that all of the main leaf is not in focus. And that one sideways leaf to the right of the main leaf is very distracting. howcheng {chat} 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• oppose, same as above, the entire subject should be in focus. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too shallow DOF. --Tewy 06:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm puzzled why this one is here because the entire picture is out of focus. Surely the uploader could see this! - Adrian Pingstone 20:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not very informative, and too shallow DOF. NauticaShades 21:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not intending to be argumentative here, but that gauzy look, which is at least partly what I think makes it seem out of focus, is how the leaves look at that stage. They are not glossy yet; they really look, to me at least, just like this photo shows. Still, the consensus is clearly against this photo so I'm OK with that. Consider this withdrawn from nominations, and thanks for the feedback.Harborsparrow 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you really not see that most of this picture is out of focus? Look at it in full size, and compare the lower right of the leaf with the upper left, and tell me those aren't the same sharpness. You can make out details of little hairs (or whatever those are) on the lower right, but the upper left is blurry, so you can only see fuzzy outlines of the leaf and its veins. --Tewy 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --NauticaShades 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)