Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phalaenopsis amabilis 13-01-2010 15-36-23.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Phalaenopsis cultivar 15-01-2010 9-45-04.png, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2010 at 15:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page nomination page
to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Paul Hermans - uploaded by Paul Hermans - nominated by Paul Hermans -- Paul Hermans (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment -- Paul Hermans (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC) -- most of all interested in comments of experts here, to be able to improve quality Paul Hermans (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)- Comment Beautiful lighting, but the left crop - right through the middle of the flower - is strange. Can you change that? --Pjt56 (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment You are absolutely right :-) Crop has been changed. Thanks for commenting Paul Hermans (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I would support after a gentle denoise. --99of9 (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Denoised and curious for any further comment and/or support Paul Hermans (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The denoise certainly helped, but there is still some speckled patchiness in the petals. Perhaps it is not possible to solve post-processing. --99of9 (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment Somehow I liked the original crop more than -the current one. It used to be an interesting forest of orchids and now it is just an orchid. (Macro standards for single flowers are really high here.) That said, both crops suffer IMO a little from central composition (see en:Rule of thirds or en:Golden ratio). The lightning and the DOF are quite good IMO and create a nice feeling. If you are going to reshoot you might want to increase DOF slightly and lower the ISO setting. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Opinions, of course, are different. A forest of orchids... that's possible... focusing on one also, interesting enough I think. More DOF, less DOF... The remark on the composition helps! I'll go for one more picture here. Lowering iso setting... 50 is this one. Paul Hermans (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The same plant, a reshoot with more focus on the golden ratio and DOF Paul Hermans (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral Lighting is great and I like the composition, but it seems a little oversharpened to me (certainly these are not jpeg artifacts?). Do you have suitable processing software? If not, I´m shure someone here will help you out. I would support a version with better sharpening. [That´s the problem with asking for opinions: you get a lot of them :)] Nikopol (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)- Comment Thanks for your comment, Nikopol. This picture was taken, not as a jpeg but it is a raw image, imported in Photoshop CS3 and saved as a png. The aperture f9, already sharpens the picture. I had it sharpened more in photoshop and denoised because of previous remarks. Don't tell me now it is too sharp :-)
- Comment May I propose that the different versions made during the review would be uploaded with different file names and promoted here as alternatives since it is now quite confusing to know which comments apply to which version. (Actually, we really should be having this discussion in Commons:Photography critiques instead and just the end result should be posted here.) Anyway, my comments regarding the fourth version: the white balance is off and the right crop is too tight. My personal favourite so far is the first version (with denoising). --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
New comments for a new alternative with the black background[edit]
- Comment I looked at the photography critiques page, ther was no entry for december 2009 and I created the possibility to make entries for 2010... So, I give it a new try here, my last one. Paul Hermans (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Info The "nomination page" -link above was broken. That's why you didn't get any comments anymore. :) I think I managed to fix it now. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - DOF doesn't cover the front flowers. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Second Alternative[edit]
Info improved DOF Paul Hermans (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Grainy due to heavy sharpening, Sorry. Nikopol (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose DOF doesn't cover the front flowers and no postprocessing can help that unfortunately. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
