Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opengebarsten vrucht van beuk (Fagus sylvatica) (d.j.b.) 03.jpg

File:Opengebarsten vrucht van beuk (Fagus sylvatica) (d.j.b.) 03.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2020 at 15:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fagaceae.
Info Cracked fruit (nap) of beech (Fagus sylvatica) with 2 more beech nuts.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sharpness and detail. Cmao20 (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent focus to the object --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very careful processing, congrat. But a bit too much empty space IMO, maybe a little crop would help. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Christian Ferrer: Alternative photo added.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, but I was thinking of something much more tight, see note above. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :@Christian Ferrer: . for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Comment Tighter trimmed.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strike my support as there is already a quite similar FP. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Hockei (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately per cart. --Hockei (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Very good illustrative photograph. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Famberhorst, you should have told us in the first place that you moved this subject to another location, and you should have mentioned and linked the other FP. I think I have to oppose on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 11:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ "Feed me, Seymour!" — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per Cart below. I don't have a particularly strong opinion about which is better, but striking support by default since they are indeed too similar to feature both. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm so sorry, but I have a problem with this photo since it seems to be exactly the same nut, light and camera position, taken half an hour later as this FP: File:Opengebarsten vrucht van beuk (Fagus sylvatica) (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, but with a different background. How come the background is green in one and brown in the other? Are these two photos different enough to both be FPs? 'Pinging' voters Christian Ferrer, Llez, Hockei, Seven Pandas, Johann Jaritz, Ikan Kekek, XRay, Rhododendrites, Michielverbeek, Cmao20. I was fixing the FP category/gallery for this photo when I noticed this. --Cart (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think they are different enough. And if there is a rule that "too similar" isn't allowed, it needs to be changed. If a photo is FP quality, it should be an FP. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the difference is from the background, which is now open for discussion. I'll be interested to read the explanation for how the backgrounds are so different. And on your other point: So, if someone takes 10 different photos of the same motif that are very slightly different, you really think all 10 should be FPs? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This photo was taken at a different location. That is why there is also a half-hour difference in the time of admission. You have to watch the entire scene again.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you moved the nut to another location to get another background? Because comparing the photos, it is the same nut in both photos; same 'hairs', same little damage to one nut and even the same little spider web in the nut. --Cart (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, one photo was taken on the forest avenue with autumn leaves. The other photo is made with grass in the background. I sometimes spend one afternoon on one subject.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Cart and this discussion. I knew I'd seen this nut before. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's definitely the same specimen with different background, per Christian. --Ivar (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both. I don't think it is acceptable to nominate the same object from the same angle and proportions but just moved to get a different background and lighting. Seven Pandas, I think you are confusing FP with QI and there is no bar where "FP quality => FP". The key feature of FP is that it is among our finest, and we use our judgement when presented with similar images. We all take many photos of a subject, but should select one for nomination. Between the two, this one is low resolution (6MP vs 14MP) and harshly lit. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]