Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Senf-Variationen.jpg

Image:Senf-Variationen.jpg, featured edit

Info created by Rainer Zenz - uploaded by Rainer Zenz - nominated by --Richard Bartz 12:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info Variations of mustard
Support Very good --Richard Bartz 12:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good work, but not FP IMO. There are spots of dirt throughout, and the lighting isn't very good for a "studio" shot. Dori - Talk 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good good --Böhringer 21:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's interesting about this? DragonFire1024 05:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rabensteiner 15:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Beyond silence 09:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thermos 09:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --I like it very much, this serial is very well thought with a regular shooting but its technical quality is lacking a bit too much for supporting it : the harsh lightning burned the highlights which take a quiet large area in the two centre images. Using an umbrella and may be a secondary source should resolve this. Also, the scratches of the neutral background could have been post-processed. Sting 15:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your imaginations are exorbitant. We should assume that most of this pictures here are done by photography amateurs. Who without professional Photoshop skills + DSLR gear (and a umbrella flash --- laughting out very loud!) should ever fulfil the FP qualifications ? This isnt Tony Stone agency here, sorry ,-) --Richard Bartz 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are studio pictures which aren't very difficult to reproduce. I completed my vote with what imo could help better them, as advice if you want. I could also have voted without any further comment, if you prefer. You proposed the image so I hope you are ready to accept the opinion of each voter, even if it isn't the same as yours. The quality level required for featured articles goes up in the different WPs, so does it here regarding the number of candidates. Sting 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- MartinD 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bergwolf 10:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suricata 19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good illustration, but I will look for better background ;) Przykuta 14:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good idea how to depict the subject you wanted to show. Its not aesthetic. There might be better way, how to depict it. Try to play with the subject.--Juan de Vojníkov 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid the light is rather too harsh for a studio shot. --MichaelMaggs 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful image. Illustrative. Samsara 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not comfortable with the lighting. Lycaon 13:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Votes added on day 10 or after are not counted, sorry. --Richard Bartz 15:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn! My watch had stopped ;-). Lycaon 17:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Next time ,-)) --Richard Bartz 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC) (Last oppose vote after voting period)[reply]