Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.03.14.-3-Buchklingen--Busch-Windroeschen.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:2014.03.14.-3-Buchklingen--Busch-Windroeschen.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2016 at 16:10:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Ranunculaceae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Over-exposed / bad lighting / small DoF so that the petals have little detail (solid white)
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment Nothing is overexposed in this picture and it is not necessary that the sharpness have to reach from front to behind in featured pictures. This is my last answer to your writings.--Hockei (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm sorry, but I find Colin's examples persuasive, even though I'd have to think carefully about whether to vote for them, either. It's understandable for you to disagree with his reasoning, but that doesn't make it unsound per se. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Colin. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Anyway new version.
Even it's just an evidence that this is not overexposed.--Hockei (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hockei, you need to ping everyone. I like this new version and would Support featuring it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. But you cannot give two votes in one nomination. One of them has to be cancelled.
Regarding ping, no. I won't do that.--Hockei (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)- Hockei, the original JPG had no detail in the highlights, which constituted most of the petal surface. I suggested that it was a mix of "Over-exposed / bad lighting / small DoF" or more likely a combination. There are lots of possible causes. What matters is the JPG was over-exposed and that's what you presented here. That your raw file retained the highlight detail is great, but not what was nominated. The latest version is probably a bit dark (both the flower and background) but I suppose you intended that just to emphasise the detail. Four people opposed your first version and we aren't all blind. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Colin, often was said to me that a picture is too dark or underexposed. Make it brighter. More brither and more. I thought what is with the details? They get lost more and more. Anyway I made it brighter and it was good for the poeple. Now I made it bright from the beginning on. Suddenly it was bad again. Too bright/overexposed/no details. The next version is too dark again. This is a dilemma, isn't it? That confused me. How ever, I've made a new slightly changed version again. (Sorry for english mistakes) --Hockei (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hockei, I'm going to cross out my "Support" vote for now, because I feel like by not pinging people, you're not really trying to get majority support for your new version. If you decide to put in the effort, I'll cross out my "Oppose" vote and reinstate my "Support" vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, please understand me right. It's just I don't want to annoy the people with pings. I think they'll see that theirselves and decide if they want to take a look more or not. --Hockei (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- If people find it annoying to be pinged, then I understand. But so far, not everyone who previously voted has weighed in on the new version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek, please understand me right. It's just I don't want to annoy the people with pings. I think they'll see that theirselves and decide if they want to take a look more or not. --Hockei (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hockei, the original JPG had no detail in the highlights, which constituted most of the petal surface. I suggested that it was a mix of "Over-exposed / bad lighting / small DoF" or more likely a combination. There are lots of possible causes. What matters is the JPG was over-exposed and that's what you presented here. That your raw file retained the highlight detail is great, but not what was nominated. The latest version is probably a bit dark (both the flower and background) but I suppose you intended that just to emphasise the detail. Four people opposed your first version and we aren't all blind. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. But you cannot give two votes in one nomination. One of them has to be cancelled.
- Hockei, you need to ping everyone. I like this new version and would
- Info New version again. A very little bit brightened. --Hockei (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- weak support The current version is much improved over the original. I still think this blue version has a better angle and background, and of course, lovely colours. -- Colin (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 16:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 15:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Medium69: , @Daniel Case: I decided to ping you after all. Would you please take another review about the new version? --Hockei (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
