Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amaryllis (Hippeastrum).JPG

File:Amaryllis (Hippeastrum).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2016 at 00:20:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Amaryllis (Hippeastrum).JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amaryllis (Hippeastrum).JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
•  Info created/uploaded/nominated by Alexandar Vujadinovic -- Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - as nominator - Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose On the first view it looks spectacular, but ultimately, I miss the typical and for a studio work necessary sharpness. The lightening is much more fishing for effects than balanced. Subjects like this needs more than one light, focus bracketing/stacking would have been the right choice.--Hubertl 00:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Hubertl. INeverCry 00:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Very weak support Taking Hubert's criticisms into account, I still can't make myself dislike the picture. However, I would agree that its deliberate artsiness makes it just borderline as far as scope goes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I find the composition interesting. --Pine^✉ 08:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lacking in detail for an indoor (I presume) photo of flowers. The lighting isn't well controlled, with some parts over-bright and others too much in shadow. I find the horizontal orientation unnatural. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose mostly per Hubertl. The light works nicely for the left flower but not too well for the right one. — Julian H.^✈ 13:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wrong orientation. Firebrace (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice attempt but the lighted areas are close to the overexposition. And it lacks a small second source of light from the right IMO, to balance a little more the lighting. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)