Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Image:Japanese Larch Larix kaempferi Cone and Needles 3008px.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  •  Question What about the composition needs to be different? Maybe an insect on the cone? -- Ram-Man 19:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answwer - The composition is unbalanced, due to the different "weight" of the two elements, and the framing is poor, much more space is needed around the subjects. Also, puting these two subjects in the same picture is risky. Maybe with a much smaller cone (the "heavy" elemet). (This is difficult to explain in my own language, in English is much harder) Let's ask the artists' opinion. Makro Freak?.... - Alvesgaspar 21:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crazy, you. Its hard to say ... thats why i opposed it commentless. The idea with the comparation is great but the picture is too sober. Maybe Derek should find a more amazing way to show this and iam shure he can. So for now it looks like a sketch for a concept . --Makro Freak talk 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I don't know if I'm going to be spending any more time on this one. I've already spent too much time with this tree, and this has the educational value I desire. I really love this one, but we could see about a different angle. This shot was one of 120 different shots of this subject. It was difficult to get the perfect depth of field so that everything was sharp. Other more artistic shots might trade in some of that sharpness for some depth. -- Ram-Man 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • On second thought, I don't think there is any possible configuration of these two that would be able to become a FP. Replace an element (like the cone) with a bug, animal, or some other more interesting object like water droplets, and you'd have an interesting FP candidate, but it would be a very different picture. The compositional FP standard for plants (as opposed to insects) is much higher and more difficult. It requires lots of failed nominations before I can get any kind of idea what anyone wants, if that can be determined at all. A shot like this which took a lot of effort and is of high technical quality fails while a green frog that was a quick snapshot and isn't as sharp succeeds. Had I taken this image with just the needles in the center and the branch as the background, it likely would have failed as well, even though it would be the same basic composition as the frog: centered subject on a plain background. -- Ram-Man 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • However, considering that many pictures cannot be a FP, so what should your monologous discussion change? Is a picture worthless when it is not a FP? You may be a good politican for the RAM-Man party, but democracy allways win ;) VIVA! --Makro Freak talk 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) FWIW, this particular nomination is particularly insightful. I find the FP process to be quite enlightening and it has helped me think about how I take photos and try new compositions and improving my skills. My concern isn't about the number of pictures than can become FPs, it is about plants in general. I really don't exactly what the magic formula is for a plant becoming a FP, despite your claim. I honestly thought this one might work, because I find it beautiful and I pre-tested it with at least one real breathing human before posting it that thought it was exceptional. I think it is both exceptional and beautiful. It is hardly worthless. I spent so much time on it not to become a FP but to be used in an article. It is wonderfully representative of the species. There is probably no other such picture available anywhere on the internet or offline, certainly not for free, except perhaps in some private collection. So value is not the question in my mind. In my own messed up head, I think this is actually good enough for a featured picture. You ask "why remain?" and the point is that I'm not going to remain. I've given up on this particular subject. The time isn't right, may never be. But I will try another species, perhaps of the same basic subject. What then will I do? -- Ram-Man 23:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, many of my pictures that I favor are not featured. The ones that are featured are often just little attempts to remain legitimate in between these "trials". The aforementioned frog is beautiful, but it's not my best work and wasn't technically difficult. The frog picture is so simplistic. It is just a frog and a rock. Nothing more or less. As you may or may not know, my first featured picture, was an upside-down cone of the same species and tree as this image. Simplistic, but not as good as this picture, IMO. Simplicity only works for certain subjects: insects, animals, and this cone. For other types, you have to be more creative in the approach. The correct approach is not obvious. And I'm not satisfied with the same old FPs. Luckily for you, you have a specialty that yields itself to lots of FPs. I like to try many different types of photography, although I focus on nature for its usefulness to Wikipedia. -- Ram-Man 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As i said, you know the receipe for FP. As more minimalistic (your mites) as higher your chances .. think in icons. I allways do. --Makro Freak talk 23:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Japanese_Larch_Larix_kaempferi_Cone_and_Needles_3008px.jpg&oldid=6058353"