Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fiori di Prugno in marzo (Prunus domestica).jpg

File:Fiori di Prugno in marzo (Prunus domestica).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2021 at 08:25:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Fiori di Prugno in marzo (Prunus domestica).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fiori di Prugno in marzo (Prunus domestica).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
•  Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by PROPOLI87 -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Neutral. Beautiful flower on the right. But for me the colors are a bit unnatural. The background is also a bit disturbing. The photo seems a bit over-processed.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Support You can work with others on the processing, but I really enjoy moving my eyes around this composition, and there are two sharp flowers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• yes, it's the same effect it has on me, that's why I decided to nominate it, all this blooming so intense around those two flowers arouses emotion, it seems that spring suddenly explodes. Thank you. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I get the effect you describe, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose Distracting background and busy composition. Also oversaturated, as Famberhorst noticed -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

•  CommentI accept any kind of criticism. But I guarantee that I have not saturated the image. It is just like that in reality. see the color of the wood which is natural (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• According to Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer, this picture has a WARNING: No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac web browsers treat colors randomly. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am viewing with windows and I see natural colors. Thank you for your suggestion. I will analyze the next photos with this program. There is always something to learn.However, I have not saturated the photo, but I only increased the structure of the flowers. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• "No embedded color profile" means the colors display differently in every computers. The greens appear like radioactive on my screen. This is fixable on Photoshop, but I see from the metadata you used the software Snapseed, which is, according to Wikipedia, "a photo-editing application for iOS and Android that enables users to enhance photos and apply digital filters"... -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Hi Anna, the Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer can not add a color profile to your photo, it is only a tool to see what could be wrong with an image. The 'color profile' is part of the code in a photo and it tells computers how to display the color. Since that code is missing from your photo, different computers will show the colors in very different and sometimes strange ways. You need to go back to the photo processing program and see how you can add the information about the color profile. If you don't know how to do this, the are always good videos on YouTube for such things. As it is now, every person looking at this photo on their own computer, will be given wrong and sometimes crazy colors, that is why some users think you have added saturation to the photo. You can read more about this here on Commons at COM:PT#Colour space. --Cart (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment For Basile Morin Yes, it is a little complicated. In practice I photograph with a Canon PowerShot SX540 HS, then I transfer the photo to a phone where I have my photo editing programs and I use snapseed, or adobe lightroom then I take the files and see on a Windows PC. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

•  CommentW.Carter Thank you. Your advice is always useful (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

•  CommentHowever technique aside I would like you to be overwhelmed by all this blossoming of spring! We need it so badly in this bad time! (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose messy composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Commentmy observation: I checked the photo with Jeffrey Friedl's Image Metadata Viewer and it corresponds to reality. My screen gives the same colors as Jeffrey's program. So I don't understand where there is error. Thank you for providing me with this additional tool. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, they look the same since you looked at them on the same computer, your computer. Your photo is calibrated for your computer. But looking at the image on another computer of a different brand, with a different browser, it will look different. --Cart (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)