Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Banana flower.jpg

Image:Banana flower.jpg, not featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~FPX|not species-identified. I would recommend researching the species before nominating flower photographs for FP status~~

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Species info uploaded, FPX tag no longer relevant. Freedom to share (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the specific id was in my email and I had problems opening it. Description page updated with specific name.Muhammad 17:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The FPX template should be reserved for the most obvious nominations only. This is a nice picture with good image quality, so it really doesn't deserve it and further discussion would be helpful for the author. —startaq (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be removed by anyone who intends to support. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Umnik (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background could be blurred out more. Freedom to share (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the background is blurred even more, then the fronds will not be visible. Currently, some parts of the fronds can be see hence increasing its encyclopedic value. Thanks for removing the FPX template BTW Muhammad 07:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to take it from another angle possibly, so that the background gradient is more consistent than it is now. For example, if you would take it from another angle and the whole of the background were green, that would be much better, have a look at most other flower FPs. I am not necessarily saying reducing depth of field will help, I am saying a different background would help. Good luck in your future endeavours, Freedom to share (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it acceptable in this kind of image to digitally remove the background using, for example, a blur filter? -- Korax1214 (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a modified version of this image which can be viewed at Photobucket; the left half of the background has been replaced with a solid forest-green fill, whilst the right half has been reduced in brightness by 30% and in contrast by 20%. Would one of these techniques, applied to the original, result in an FP-quality image? (Note that this is a quick-and-dirty modification done solely as proof of concept.) -- Korax1214 (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DO you think you could apply Gaussian blur to the background as you have now? Muhammad 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject. Flash flattened it, though. Background is distracting. Crapload (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Crapload --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Simba123 (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Vote of blocked user struck. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Startaq --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Crapload, needs dusting too. --AM (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dusting? Muhammad 05:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flash makes it look unnatural. –Dilaudid 08:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]