Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flower reflections in raindrop.jpg

File:Flower reflections in raindrop.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2009 at 17:08:21

•  InfoLots of wow for everyone I hope ;-) Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose  Neutral Nice picture, but barely more than 2Mpx does not impress me for FP. If it was 3Mpx+ I definitely would have supported this one! (Especially since the Canon EOS 400D is capable of over 10Mpx...) --JalalV (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Funny. Why expecting a higher image size when you was delivering only barely 3Mpx for your own last nomination on FPC ? Either way 3 or 2 Mpx is small but within the rules. Nobody was opposing your picture because of the small size, so you shouldn't, too. If your answer is it's because the eye was cropped then we can assume the same for Muhammad's picture as long nobody was asking him. Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think 3Mpx is at the smaller end, but it is generally considered an acceptable replacement size for 5"x7" (decent consumer-sized) prints. I use this as a minimum baseline for any pictures that aren't web-only, especially as modern technology makes small sizes increasingly obselete. Anything less than this tends to get quite pixelated. JalalV (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have provided the camera information. If this image was taken with a 3mp camera, would you oppose it? IMO, the camera should not be taken into consideration, that is why we have fixed criteria to judge from. This picture is a quick attempt at a focus stacking since the picture was taken after a heavy rainfall whilst it was still windy with the naturally present good light. (Thanks to advice given by Richard Bartz). With a focus stack, some parts of the resulting image need to be cropped out. --Muhammad 11:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If it was 3Mpx from a 3Mpx camera, then I wouldn't have opposed it ;) Seriously though, the camera isn't as important as the fact that I couldn't see any logical reason for such a small size (other than significant downsampling or a very heavy crop). Since I know very little about focus stacking, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (although from what I can tell, it only requires quite minor cropping, with a process similar to HDR). I've changed my vote above to neutral, and I'll let the rest of Commons decide. --JalalV (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Poor composition. A way from this one of Luc Viatour -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like this photo. It recalls me simplicity (Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC))
•  Oppose The central lower drop, close to centre of the image, is the best example of what you give as the subject of the picture (the unopened tiger lily shown in the droplets). Try again, if the droplets are available daily, with that one droplet as the main feature, centred at rule of thirds, lower left, and showing enough of the stalk and any other droplets to put the droplet in context. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Avjoska (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I was going to oppose, but then I saw this one. I think that yours is better. —kallerna™ 12:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Twdragon (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per previous --Pom² (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)