Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Flowers Closeup Nom 2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Flowers Closeup 2800px.jpg, featured[edit]
Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. (previous nomination) -- Ram-Man 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)- Info Swamp Milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) flowers.
Support This is my favorite milkweed flower photo. It's got great composition, DoF, and high quality. It even has an insect. It's useful for illustrating a number of Wikipedia articles. -- Ram-Man 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)- Support A tad blurry but I like the composition. --Calibas (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose DoF is much too low. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is an unreasonable standard. DoF is already quite high for this magnification. The only way around this is to sacrifice resolution (2MP at f/22 vs. 6MP at f/13) or perform focus bracketing, which is not and should not be a requirement here. All the parts of the flowers are sharp in some part of the image, so value is not in quesiton here. -- Ram-Man 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Or you could have chosen a flatter angle to reduce the front-to-back distance. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean? The focus *is* at a front-to-back angle. Notice how the camera is looking down at an angle, thus spreading the focal plane out over a wider range of flowers. This maximizes the focal plane! The flowers were not shot head-on or top-down, which would have destroyed the composition. I have plenty of more clinical views, but they are are much flatter as a result. See this image for a prime example. The apparent DoF is much higher in the nominated image because of the angle, even though both images were shot at the same aperture. This is the version with an FP-level composition. -- Ram-Man 21:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have to say I personally prefer that one, but it's a matter of opinion. There is no doubt you have obtained the maximal depth of field consistent with overall sharpness, but not all camera-angles are FP-worthy. Sorry, I think we will just have to disagree on this one. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- The DoF at f/13, 70mm, 10" distance is only 4mm or 5mm. Since the individual flowers themselves would fit in a 6mm cube, there is only enough DoF for a single flower to be in pure sharp focus. Obviously DoF does not drop of suddenly, so it looks okay with the gradual drop-off, but nevertheless, there is very little the angle could have done to actually improve this image. We can disagree. I think this is the only FP-worthy composition, you think otherwise. So be it. -- Ram-Man 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have to say I personally prefer that one, but it's a matter of opinion. There is no doubt you have obtained the maximal depth of field consistent with overall sharpness, but not all camera-angles are FP-worthy. Sorry, I think we will just have to disagree on this one. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean? The focus *is* at a front-to-back angle. Notice how the camera is looking down at an angle, thus spreading the focal plane out over a wider range of flowers. This maximizes the focal plane! The flowers were not shot head-on or top-down, which would have destroyed the composition. I have plenty of more clinical views, but they are are much flatter as a result. See this image for a prime example. The apparent DoF is much higher in the nominated image because of the angle, even though both images were shot at the same aperture. This is the version with an FP-level composition. -- Ram-Man 21:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Or you could have chosen a flatter angle to reduce the front-to-back distance. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is an unreasonable standard. DoF is already quite high for this magnification. The only way around this is to sacrifice resolution (2MP at f/22 vs. 6MP at f/13) or perform focus bracketing, which is not and should not be a requirement here. All the parts of the flowers are sharp in some part of the image, so value is not in quesiton here. -- Ram-Man 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutral The shallow DOF pleases me here: you don't have to have every bud in focus to know what they look like. However I feel the composition is too tight on the bottom. –Dilaudid 17:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)- Support I like the DOF and the composition. --Chmehl (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow--Sensl (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Crop maybe a tad tight, but DOF is sufficient IMO. Lycaon (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice picture. But not enought wow. Crapload (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support great composition and details --Ianare (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
