Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Epilobium hirsutum - Seed head - Triptych.jpg

File:Epilobium hirsutum - Seed head - Triptych.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2012 at 16:51:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Epilobium hirsutum - Seed head - Triptych.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Epilobium hirsutum - Seed head - Triptych.jpg

•  Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- The helical seed heads of the great willowherb make for interesting macros. I think the images work best in this set of three, which, as well as showing the heads from various angles, is also an example of a contemporary photographic triptych. Note: Alvesgaspar's poppies (here and here) are among the handful of existing image-sets at FP Colin (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Huge WOW! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support superb! --Ivar (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment depth is poor and relation between one image to each other is unclear --93.144.87.135 18:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The shallow depth-of-focus was a deliberate choice, but may not be to everyone's taste of course. I took some shots with a greater depth-of-focus but the result was messier and paradoxically resulted in less depth information (near, middle and far all in focus). With the first image, for example, the focus is specifically on the inner string of seeds, and the fact that the outer seeds are far out-of-focus means one can distinguish this inner group. Colin (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Support great and artistic --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support great! --Kadellar (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting patterns perhaps, but images do no portray a true representation of subject. They go more into the abstract than a visual description of subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --JDP90 (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per the IP above and Tomas. I wondered why such a collage instead of a set nomination so searched previous examples and found one: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The link you gave was Wikipedia FP, not Commons. See Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers#Posters for four Commons image "collages", as you call them (including the two poppies I linked above). Wikipedia is a publisher, not an image resource, and a gallery on WP can achieve the same effect with the three individual images (which are also uploaded and linked from the set). Also, Wikipedia has the concept of a FP Set. See Featured Picture Set. This is not Wikipedia. If somone can indicate that Commons also has the concept of a "Featured Picture Set" consisting of individual images, then I could nominate as that. As for the "abstract" issue, all macro shots look unusual to a degree. That nature can also have an abstract appeal is one of the attractions of macro photography. This is exactly what those seed heads look like up close. That's why I photographed them. See Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others for loads of FPs that have abstract qualities to varying degrees. They are all very much real. Colin (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes; Commons also has the concept of Featured Picture Set: "If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set." You can read more instructions under "set nominations" under "Guidelines for nominators" at the top of this page. But unfortunately I can't see any examples. And all the examples of "image collages" that you showed are from the same user and not very useful in my humble opinion. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see that bit, thanks. I also have failed to find any nominations, let alone sucessful candidates. A search turned up Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cochlearius cochlearius stages.jpg ironically :-). Colin (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment It has been suggested these are nominated as a "featured picture set". So I've done this as an alternative choice below. I still think the above has merit of its own as an example of a photographic trypych: three photographs on a theme. Colin (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the same as Colin: "I still think the above has merit of its own as an example of a photographic trypych: three photographs on a theme." That was why I supported this. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternative as a set

• 
• 
• 

•  Support Per above discussion, here's the nomination as a "featured picture set". FYI see the guidelines under "Set nominations" on this page -- Colin (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Still, on photographic technique, as a macro photograph. The dof is visually disturbing. Either as one or as a set. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• support=7 oppose=2 for original nomination; can be closed. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants