Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana Flower Closeup 2242px.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Image:Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana Flower Closeup 2242px.jpg, not featured edit

 

  •   Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Info Sweetbay Magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) leaves and flower.
  •   Support A flower with leaves, providing more educational value than many solitary flowers or from a less important genus. Let's see if it continues to be true that only sexy flowers can be featured. -- Ram-Man 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose - too noisy and blurred to be featured material. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Distracting background detracts from image. Freedom to share 07:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose This is a sexy flower and the composition is nice. But the image quality is far from acceptable for FP,specially the artifacts in the background and the lack of sharpness -- Alvesgaspar 08:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I must seriously object to the reaction to this nomination. If we have approached a level of technical strictness here that requires images from an SLR, then it is sad the direction that we have come. The guidelines clearly list 2MP as the minimum, and this is well above that level. The obsession with evaluating images on low-dpi displays at high magnifications (i.e. 100%) is causing perfectly good images to be rejected. We are moving past the point where the FP process features anyone who can take a good picture to anyone who can take a good picture with a good camera. I've had a number of perfectly good nominations rejected because of noise or DoF from a P&S, and have seen a good number of other people's nominations fail for the same reason. Specifically: the noise level is more than acceptable for a P&S. Canon images are usually cleaner than any of the other manufacturers, except maybe Nikon. This is about as good as you can get. As for the background, the problem again becomes that a P&S has more depth of field than an SLR, so this is really the best you can get. You can't have a shallow DoF AND a high level of sharpness. It's not physically possible. Had I merely taken this with my SLR + macro lens, as in this, at least two of these oppose votes would be eliminated. -- Ram-Man 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral Actually I'm amazed people are complaining about the quality. I could see maybe opposing on composition or wow (which is why I'm neutral instead of support), but I was surprised to see what camera it was. --Dori - Talk 18:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral I agree with Dori. The sharpness of the flower is excellent, certainly for that kind of camera. It's proved again that Canon P&S cameras are very good (I have one too... so I know the possibilities and the limits of it). This image is certainly QI, but perhaps just not FP... -- MJJR 21:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral Ack. Dori. Neutral as an FP, but for sure this is a QI. -- Relic38 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral Ack. Dori --MichaelMaggs 18:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support The shriveled petals detract from the beauty, but I agree with Ram-man. --ErgoSum88 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral - With a shallower DOF I would support. --Cpl Syx 03:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose as per above. -- RBID 09:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 5 neutral => not featured. Mywood 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Sweetbay_Magnolia_Magnolia_virginiana_Flower_Closeup_2242px.jpg&oldid=10449517"