Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papaver March 2010-2.jpg

File:Papaver March 2010-2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2010 at 15:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info My 1000th image. I tried to upload something special. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, all sorts of blur :-) Nice colors.  Richard  [®]  16:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral it has a wow, it has nice colours, it is nice for illustration, but it hasn't a lot sharpness. IMO it isn't a FP... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially low DOF :-). Congrats on #1000. --Dschwen (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, I didn't want to spoil the party and didn't think this would get any support anyways. But I guess I'll have to Oppose now. --Dschwen (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of focus, sharpless. --Mile (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is short of interesting, but the depth of field is too narrow. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centered composition, main object too small, low DOF, sorry. —kallerna™ 09:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Obvious and sage comments. I would expect someone to notice that the size of the object, the composition, the framing, the colours and the little dof are all purposeful and carefully arranged. Treating this picture as a common depiction of a poppy capsule is kind of limited. A bot would suffice. What about a plain "don't like it"?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the creative hoopla should not get in the way of educational usefulness. (This is not a plain photography critique website. Check out http://photo.net ) --Dschwen (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not complete just like that - It's a pretty example of low depth of field (seriously) and it could be used in the projects. Is it convincing and outstanding enough for this purpose and hence FP ? This is a different question where I have no answer by now.  Richard  [®]  18:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah sure Mr. Devil's Advocate ;-). But I would even contest the image's value in that respect. DOF is much better illustrated with a subject that is obvious to the user. In particular the perspective has to be absolutely clear. This is not the case in this image. --Dschwen (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- ***@Dschwen: well, that would be a quite narrow and unimaginative concept of ‘educational value’, even accepting it as a criterion of inclusion for FPC (which is far from obvious). Extraordinary pictures where the element "beauty" prevails, like this one, this one or this one would be probably excluded if such restrictive concept of yours were to be applied. I can live well with straight honesty (and lack of nicety) but have some difficulty in accepting the mixture of boldness and inaccuracy. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. I went over both the Image guidelines and the FP criteria. And it is correct, that educational value does not appear there. However it appears in the project scope as Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Well, you call my interpretation restrictive, I can live with that. But it still puzzles me that you thought this image would not only be useful enough to upload it, but even so very special, that it should be nominated on FPC. There is no question that with a sufficient amout of creativity you can make up an educational purpose for almost any image (if only as a negative example ;-) ). Anyhow, I think it would be a mistake to Flickrize this page. FPs should serve as a good example, and one aspect is being well within procect scope, and not just barely with a lot if liberty in interpreting the guidelines. --Dschwen (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That for sure has wow, and nice colors to me. I wouldn't fully support (see after why) but I'd like to "compensate" the mechanical "low DOF" opposes. I think the effect would have been much more convincing with a tilt shift lens, but I wonder if a macro tilt shift lens can be found out there. - Benh (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible but would break the mold especially the purse $$$ :-) T/S isn't neccesary  Richard  [®]  19:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess what link to allow to put any macro lens inside, and then we can adjust the focal plane by the folding the blue part. This would achieve the effect I'm thinking about :) How much is that toy ? - Benh (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - 700 Euro .. Ouuuch!  Richard  [®]  20:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - For a plunger?! ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        <nod>  Richard  [®] 
    - After a little googling, I found this :) - Benh (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--kuvaly|d|p| 15:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It's very pretty, and I think the low DOF can be put to use here to isolate the focus on the subject. A tighter crop might also help with that. However, I don't think it has enough wow for me for a featured image. Jonathunder (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've looked at this a time or two now. In the end I agree with Jonathunder I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]