Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pinus taeda 29 NBG LR.jpg

File:Pinus taeda 29 NBG LR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2017 at 11:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pinus taeda 29 NBG LR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pinus taeda 29 NBG LR.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Pinales
• All by me. Pinus taeda bark in the Colonial Garden at Norfolk Botanical Garden. PumpkinSky talk 11:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Well structured bark. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing color and detail. Artistic composition, well framed. Montanabw (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - though I would like, please, to see an indication of scale in the description. Are we looking at an area, say, 2", 6" or 12" across? Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment About 4-5" both directions. Added to file info. PumpkinSky talk 10:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Low on the wow factor for me but we are lacking FP bark photos. Good detail and the green lichen adds some detail. However, I wouldn't recommend making a habit of nominating bark at FP, as it isn't that interesting unless you are into bark. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"... it isn't that interesting unless you are into bark." Colin ... such dry humor! I didn't know you had it in you. This is the first time I've ever LOLed at something you said. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Daniel Case, Colin, Cart Actually, I am into bark, from a visual and photographic stance. The patterns and textures can be fascinating. They have the added benefit of not moving, which is a problem with animals and wind-blown plants. PumpkinSky talk 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Interesting but not a FP IMO--Ermell (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I basically agree with Ermell. Definitely interesting to look at, but not a great composition, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting, great detail, and composition. HalfGig talk 20:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I don't think bark photos are especially boring. In many ways they actually resemble some of the satellite photos we see here of Earth and other stellar bodies. In the right light and angle they are very cool. Imagine a stacked macro of one of the "trenches" in these structures. --cart-Talk 08:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I completely agree with Cart on this. Bark photos are fascinating with the added benefit of being excellent photography practice. PumpkinSky talk 09:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• On the other hand any subject can look good with the right light/angle/composition. :-) --cart-Talk 10:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• For whatever it's worth, I agree that bark photos can be interesting and good compositions, and I previously supported some nominations of bark photos that not enough other people considered featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support I love the texture. It almost looks like it could be a satellite photo of surface features on some other planet. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Order_:_Pinales