Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dahlia 'Moonfire' 006.JPG

File:Dahlia 'Moonfire' 006.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2015 at 05:50:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dahlia 'Moonfire' 006.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dahlia 'Moonfire' 006.JPG

•  Info Dahlia 'Moonfire'. A brilliant selection. Warm colors combined with dark leaves. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Touzrimounir (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose From an APS-C size sensor camera from 2012, I don't understand the image quality. There is this strange, not sure which word to use, maybe flaky texture across the whole image. At just over 4 Megapixels, I don't think that's acceptable in a FP. — Julian H.^✈ 15:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitely much better now. I'll give a good  Neutral because it's still quite small and relatively usual in what it looks like. — Julian H.^✈ 08:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Lack of details by over-sharpened and heavy NR. Halos around petals and probably a bit over-saturated. I just presumed... :) --Laitche (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Done New version. --Famberhorst (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment The new version is getting better except the composition but still not reach the FP bar, I think. --Laitche (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Question: You mean the crop? --Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know the reason exactly, Maybe that needed ISO 200 and 1/40 exposure time when this has been taken, just a little bit motion blur happened or maybe lack of luminous for a APS-C, in any case it's not enough detailed for a FP, I guess, imo. --Laitche (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just my opinion. Currently 5 support 1 oppose 1 neutral, never mind :) --Laitche (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• I seem to have a bit of a problem with the background. It looks a bit like you cut the flower and placed it in a vase on a table with a nicely trimmed lawn in the background to achieve a smooth background. No, I'm not saying you actually did that, with a flower of this height it's easily possible to get this effect in situ. It's just that it looks a bit artificial to me – which is to be expected for an artificial cultivar growing in an artificial garden, but still … To be honest, I just don't like it as an image and would have probably preferred a plain black studio background. Or to say it in FPC slang: No WOW →  Oppose. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Dahlias are not hardy in the Netherlands and are usually used as a pot plant. The Dahlia was also in a pot with the background lawn.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation – it doesn't really matter, though. It's probably just a matter of taste – others seem to disagree with my opinion and that's perfectly fine, of course. Forgot to say in my initial review: The colors of the flower itself look really great, imo. --El Grafo (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Hubertl (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants