Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nordkirchen, Naturschutzgebiet Ichterloh -- 2018 -- 2314.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Nordkirchen, Naturschutzgebiet Ichterloh -- 2018 -- 2314.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2018 at 09:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by Smial -- Smial (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Support Love it because of the special lighting, decent colours, and the nice use of DOF.-- Smial (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I ended up supporting this one for QI but I just can't for FP, sorry. The DoF just isn't working for me at this level.--Peulle (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)- Support The DoF has to land somewhere and this seems like a good choice to me. We have become too used to focus stacked indoors objects, are we now demanding that for normal landscape photos as well? With delicate flowers like these, that is almost impossible due to wind and changing light (sun moves and wind stir shadows from branches). It's a perfectly fine normal f/9 photo. --Cart (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support A great and appealing impression of a natural scene, well composed and executed. And as for DoF: C'mon guys, FPC ain't Group f/64. Luckily
. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC) - Oppose Not the right focal lens. I opened the image and was immediately disappointed. So many beautiful flowers in this landscape, and so few in focus. Then I couldn't believe this was shot at f/9, before looking at the EXIF, where of course, I discovered this was taken with a telephoto ! Just not adapted, I mean, for my own taste. This kind of pictures should be taken with a wide angle, I think. The main problem here is less the blurry background than the blurry foreground. Actually, there is just a thin line of flowers in focus, but so little, it's a pity. Facing such great scenery, we want to see more ! Not just a dozen given to imagine the rest, but have them all here, clearly in the eye, to contemplate. The above comments concerning the bokeh are potentially valid, except this is not the right situation where such artistic blur is aesthetic. We could try nominating more photos with nice and interesting bokeh, but sorry this failed one for me is a clear no-go -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support This photograph would have been the next for my nominations. Thanks to Smial for nominating. The DoF may be a point of discussion. For me it isn't. At the place are thousands of blossoms. I tried a wide angel lens and most of the blossoms are too small with large white areas. With too much DoF the background became disturbing. The background was restless. So it wasn't a good choice. For an exposed position there were too much blossoms. So I tried to have a manageable number of blossoms sharp and this is the result - with a tele lens and f/9. I'd choosen a place in the sun, so the sun emphasizes the blossoms. The shadow ensures a discreet background. I think for photographs like this one with a lot of very small objects a large DoF is not a good choice. To much sharp object will result in a restless picture. --XRay talk 11:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment Not made my mind up about this. I wonder if rather than the amount of DoF being the problem, it is that my eye is naturally drawn to the top-left rule-of-third point (the tree trunks form a leading line down to that point), which is also an area of maximum blur. So maybe the focus is too far forward. But appreciate you want the flowers that are most visible to be most sharp. In terms of DoF, this is similar to my own File:Pryor's Wood Bluebells 2017-04-26-4.jpg which is also telephoto (equivalent to 200mm on FF, and this is 170mm) and similar aperture f/5.6 equivalent to f/8.4 on FF (this is f/9). The compression that this focal length provides means one sees just the wood floor of flowers. If a wide angle was used, it would bring in other parts of the woodland and a greater height of tree, which can be a problem if the woodland flowers aren't comprehensively covering the floor. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)- Oppose - I have not participated in the CR discussion about this file in QIC, but for this nomination, I will participate because I don't experience this as a great photo. Too much of it is a blur to me, including the nearest foreground, so I simply don't find viewing the file pleasant, and I don't think an unpleasant experience is what the photographer intends. Some things are visceral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin's critique. Daniel Case (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose For me, about 70% blur is not suitable as an excellent photo. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
