Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cleistocactus strausii (70387).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Cleistocactus strausii (70387).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2018 at 22:49:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wooly torch cactus
  • Ha! I said "I have never seen a cactus look so much like a bird." Looking at the FP category, I see that in 2013 we have promoted another picture of the same species with some [rather creepy] birdlike qualities! I see in that one there was a suggestion to brighten it. We will see if that is echoed here -- brightening is definitely possible, although the brighter it is the more detail will be lost at the base of the spines. — Rhododendrites talk22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This I do not understand. I look at the image that was featured and does look to have been taken with a flash, and I see less detail/clarity than in this one, and I have a hard time imagining how a flash would be an improvement. Maybe I've just never used a good flash or known how to use one. New version uploaded - I just went back and brightened the subject in Lightroom and uploaded a new version. Presumably this is not what's being recommended here? If not, could someone link to a good example of a white subject made clearer using a flash? — Rhododendrites talk14:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a flash used in this, this and I used a flash directly on the birch in this. These are some that I could come up with right away, there are probably more/better examples out there. I think flashes are more in sync with cameras these days. Using a flash is a new tool in your camera box, it takes a bit getting used to as do all new photo things. :) Not so long ago you had no idea about CA or stacking, and look at you now! :) I thought I'd plant this seed in your curious mind. --Cart (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I do need to experiment with it more, it's true. In this case, I remain mystified how this is preferable to the current image, and skeptical (glibly, likely) that a flash would produce something preferable to simply amplifying existing light in post-processing. If the tastes of FPC are such that the other image is deemed superior, then it is a standard I'm not inclined to aspire to, for better or worse. — Rhododendrites talk19:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the specimen goes, yours is way better. :) The think a flash could have done for you here, is put a bit if sparkle in the needles and bring out the definition of the green/grey/brown plant texture of the cactus skin. It would also have lifted the shadow where the "beak" joins the main plant and made the red a bit more prominent. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. I'll take a closer look when I'm on my desktop. Based on how this nom has gone so far, I suspect there's not a version of this image that would be featured, but maybe I'll try it again sometime down the line. — Rhododendrites talk18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, the illusion isn't the basis for the nomination. :) I just think it's a high quality depiction of an unusual-looking species -- that it looks a bit like a bird makes it kind of fun, but I wouldn't nominate it just on that basis. Not expecting this to change anyone's mind -- this clearly isn't going to pass either way. Just want to be clear about my motivation. :) — Rhododendrites talk18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]