Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cleistocactus strausii (70387).jpg
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.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Cactaceae
- Info Cleistocactus strausii is a "wooly torch" cactus, with dark red flowers that jut out horizontally. One of the things I like about this one is the sharpness (unavoidable pun) of the spines. Also, as a bonus, I have never seen a cactus look so much like a bird. :) all by — Rhododendrites talk | 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support -- — Rhododendrites talk | 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 talk | 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting is very flat, resemblance to bird is mildly amusing but composition is not Wow. -- Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. Charles (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This is one of those cases when you could experiment with using a fill-in forced flash (if you have one) on one or two photos. Try it sometime, if the ambient light is this good, you will not get harsh shadows. I'm always amazed how subtle such a flash can be even if it feels like it lights up the whole room. --Cart (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 talk | 14:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 talk | 19:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- Did some work on it, yours if you want it. Cheers, --Cart (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 talk | 18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support You so want to pet it, but you wouldn't ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support --Patriccck (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately this nomination reminds me this unsuccessful one Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pipe_couplings_on_a_pressure_tank_under_construction.jpg, to which I opposed too because the illusion is not obvious enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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 talk | 18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)