Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apple blossom 01.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 May 2009 at 01:53:01

Info created by Robert of Ramsor - uploaded by Robert of Ramsor - nominated by Robert of Ramsor -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was surprised to find very few images of apple blossom (unless they have not been put in the correct category) and mostly too low resolution for FP. No apple blossom at all in FP. So here is something to fill that gap. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor composition --ianaré (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snapshot level, sorry. I can't see a planned light - or compositional concept behind this picture. --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Richard. You should maybe consider a less centred composition. In general the composition is a bit cluttered, the eye doesn't really know where to look. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Richard. Flowers are pretty, but this picture does not go the extra mile to stand out from the tons of flower snapshots. --Dschwen (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\^talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info created by Robert of Ramsor - uploaded by Robert of Ramsor - nominated by Robert of Ramsor -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one is because I could not decide between the two. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to MBz1 for the reminder. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition here better. The tender new flower suraunded by flower buds is very nice IMO. Please do not forget to support your own Alt 1.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ianaré (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snapshot level, sorry. I can't see a planned light - or compositional concept behind this picture. --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The light was full sunlight, with the background in shadow, which is why it happens to have ended up so dark. Which is a good thing as the ground below this bracnh was untidy. I considered lightening the background by adjusting the gamma, but lack the software to isolate the flowers neatly enough. (And printers often lighten the picture anyway.) The change in gamma made the flowers look whited-out. The exposure was limited by the need to avoid saturated white on the petals. And having had another picture taken in passing cloud cover on a sunny day rejected because of the light, I thought it would be better to use he full sun option. (You can't satisy everyone all the time.) Composure, aiming at this bloom as the best isolated bunch at the time, leaning from the top of a ladder, was planned to avoid putting the main bloom exactly central, and this was the sharpest of 3 (there were others, but being perched on the ladder they were cropped) which worked along these lines. Perhaps I should cut the branch off the tree, and place it in a studio with full control over everything. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a studio isn't needed for such subject. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Richard -- Pro2 (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Richard. Flowers are pretty, but this picture does not go the extra mile to stand out from the tons of flower snapshots. --Dschwen (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposecomposition-wise it is better than the upper one but the bar for flowers is really high as for bugs btw. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Estrilda (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lycaon (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Richard Bartz. --Karel (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\^talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Alt 1 but variant with some cropping to reduce superfluous areas in the hope of improving composition. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my previous vote --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\^talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Alt 2 but with sharpness and resolution degraded to match more closely the general quality of up to half the existing flowers now in Featured Pictures. And this is still better than any of the previous examples in the Malus domestica blossom category. OK, it may not be good enough for Featured Pictures by 2009 standards, if the bar is as high as AngMoKio says. But it would have made Featured Picture at this sharpness and resolution 2 years ago if the existing examples are any guide. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sharpness and resolution not as good as Alt 2 -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my previous vote plus no need for bold text. Is everything ok with you ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\^talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contents