Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Herbstzeitlose, 2.jpg
File:Herbstzeitlose, 2.jpg, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2016 at 13:44:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
- Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
- Support -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - The flower is very clear, but the fuzzy grasses on the left side do nothing good for the picture and look especially bad at full size. I'd recommend cropping out at least the leftmost third of the picture. And while the flower is very nicely photographed and would get my support for a feature if it were photographed that well by itself, since I don't like anything else in the picture (the rest of it feels almost pointless to me), I won't feel wowed even if you take my crop suggestion. I suspect others will be more wowed; we shall see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose The flower itself is sharp and fantastic, but this is one of those times when it could have been best with a little "analogue edited", that is plucking away some of the more intrusive grass straws in front of the flower (and that sturdy cut one on the left that is stealing the attention of the flower). The idea of a sharp flower between blurry/bokeh straws is nice in theory, but it seldom as good in practice. Only time it works is when the straws in front of the flower are so far from it and so close to the camera that the bokeh of the straw becomes almost transparent (example). Sorry. cart-Talk 19:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. INeverCry 22:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan (your suspicions will, I suspect, not be borne out). Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose The light and colors are very good on the flower and the drops of dew attractive, but I also have to agree with the review of W.carter regarding "analogue editing". -- Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice quality! A little bit disappointed framing... --Laitche (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of no more chance of success, and to many reasons for oppose. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JEFF 08:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)