Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Huflattich-Schutthalde.jpg

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

File:Huflattich-Schutthalde.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2014 at 09:11:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tussilago farfara (Coltsfoot) growing on a rubble tip
  •  Info A bunch of Tussilago farfara (Coltsfoot) growing in its most natural habitat, a dry rubble tip. Though the most common image for this species on Commons appears to be File:Coltsfoot.jpg, which is a fine image, I prefer my image for its atmosphere and warm light. While the foremost blossoms are in focus, the more remote ones aren’t in order to obtain a nice smooth background blur.
  •  Info c/u/n by -- Kreuzschnabel 09:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Kreuzschnabel 09:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Good work. But I see only one flower in focus in your work. And it is not so sharp compared to ones in the other picture you mentioned. Jee 11:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Please keep in mind that you’re comparing 5.4 megapixels to 16 megapixels. Downscaled, my image would appear much sharper of course. And without wanting to start a discussion here, I definitely see more than one flower perfectly sharp. --Kreuzschnabel 19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would love to have supported this image, but too few flowers are in focus. What a great pity. A beautiful early spring flowering plant that, as you clearly show, livens up ruderal spots. -- Des Callaghan (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment To get more of them into focus, I would have had to stop down beyond f/8, which certainly would have impaired the sharpness due to diffraction – or take an entire series for focus stacking. This is almost a close-up shot, taken from a very short distance, which comes usually with a shallow DoF. --Kreuzschnabel 19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very nice specimen in good light in its natural environment. Sharpness is fine given the resolution. I do think the aperture could have been stopped down to e.g. f/11 to achieve a better overall compromise between DOF and diffraction blur, but for me DOF is sufficient. It adds a little of bokeh to it and helps the main subject stand out better from the background. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think that about 4 flowers are in focus, but I guess that's a question of how narrow the definition of "in focus" is. At least the triangle in the center is sharp for me. The atmosphere is good, with the warm light. The picture you linked is almost oversharpened to me. I guess they both have their positive qualities. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 07:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support good --.snoopy. 00:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--H. Krisp (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  Support I'm sick of the "shallow DOF" criticism of plant photos here. This is a superb photo with DOF totally sufficient. In most lenses used for plant photography you can get at least up to F16 without diffraction, but often even that cannot put everything in focus. Anyway there is really no need for more DOF here IMO. Gidip (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support +1=7 -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Images 16:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 15:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Huflattich-Schutthalde.jpg&oldid=137964868"