Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flower Art for A Sharp Eye.jpg

File:Flower Art for A Sharp Eye.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2020 at 11:51:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Flower Art for A Sharp Eye.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flower Art for A Sharp Eye.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Other
•  Info Page 28 from my new free magazine which gives hints on improving your wildlife photography during lockdown and encourages photographers to contribute to Commons and Wikipedia. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Nice work on the magazine! This is a fun collage and I think it deserves FP. It's purely artistic rather than illustrative, but there's nothing wrong with that. Cmao20 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support per Cmao20, something quite unusual to see here. Thank you also for you new magazine — I hope it will both inspire photographers and win new contributors for Commons. --Aristeas (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too small, and other problems. Note that my vote has no link with the magazine, just with this nomination.

1. Firstly, the resolution is ridiculously weak for a FPC! Without the black frame, only 1250 x 1270 px? Less than the minimum requested in the guidelines. And I see no justification for such a tiny size, on the contrary, since it is a photomontage, we could expect larger than what the camera recorded.
2. Secondly, too kitsch for my personal taste. Of course it is "cute" and colorful, but frankly this is also too repetitive. Aesthetically, that style reminds me the dot stickers of my childhood :-) It occupies the time, but creativity is also very limited. Although I love Arcimboldo, Octavio Ocampo and Oleg Shuplyak, I really don't think these patterns are up to this art. It lacks subtlety and singularity in my view.
3. Thirdly, a butterfly on a real flower, with a true photographic composition (and its natural flaws, giving life and soul) would have been much better in my opinion. Now I just see a huge black background, glaring colors, and a boring copy-paste method.

Sorry, this is maybe innovative compared to what we're used to meet here, but personally I don't like this patchwork. Looks too artificial, and it lacks poetry in the way I feel. Your pictures of animals in their natural environment are usually a thousand times more captivating. -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I had uploaded the version I used for the magazine. A higher resolution version is now uploaded
2. but it’s still kitch!. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes:D However, with this new resolution also come new issues, in particular the sharpness now is far from homogeneous. Compare the blue butterfly for example, to the red bug it hosts, at full resolution the rendering is technically flawed -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Sorry, I kind of agree with Basile. The size is fine now, but though this is cute and creative, the overall composition isn't doing much for me. Too much blank space, I guess. However, good luck on the magazine, an exciting venture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose An interesting project and best of luck with the magazine, but I agree with the other opposers. Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)