Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hyacinth (Hyacinthus).JPG

File:Hyacinth (Hyacinthus).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2016 at 01:27:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hyacinth (Hyacinthus).JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hyacinth (Hyacinthus).JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
•  Info created by User:Alexandar Vujadinovic - uploaded by User:Alexandar Vujadinovic - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - I'm curious to see what you all will think of this photo. It's a Quality Image, and if promoted, it would apparently be our first Featured Picture of a hyacinth (I did a search under Category:Hyacinthus). I love the texture of the petals at full size. I find the clarity of the entire visible portion of the plant excellent. And the background is black, so there is no distracting blurred section and nothing to detract from our focus on the plant. Depending on my mood, I might find this black not to impede my eye's movement around the picture frame or too extreme a color for the background, but on balance, I support this picture, and mainly, I'm just curious what reaction it will get. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I love the composition and contrast in this image. Unfortunately, it's just not pixel-sharp at 100%, which is generally a must for any FP under 6 MP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - I wasn't aware of that guideline. It's a lot sharper than some images that have been promoted, but I guess they were larger files. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Question - And not to pick on User:Uoaei1, who is a great photographer, but this photo is currently under consideration for FP and looks likely to be approved. Is the entire flower pixel sharp in that picture? I have abstained from voting on it because I'm not convinced it's clear enough at full size (not to mention that I don't love the bokeh). I understand that it's a much larger file (though still smaller than 6 MB), but is it a better photo than this one? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please do not mix up MP (Mega-Pixel) and MB (Mega-Byte)! For me, the sharpness of this picture is not bad, but not outstanding for a studio picture. This is one difference to my picture, which shows a flower in its habitat somewhere on alpine pasture (see GPS data). Another one is the size: the size of the flower on my picture is about 10% of this one here. I will not vote for or against this image - it is good, but I am not convinced by composition (is the orientation correct? why is the raceme cropped? why is it shown in this diagonal orientation?), and I do not like the black background. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your clearly-stated reply. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per King of Hearts. INeverCry 02:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Uoaei1, I would accept this sharpness for an image in the wild, but this is a studio image, with more of the variables plausibly under the photographer's control. Pity ... I don't mind the black background, and the colors and composition are nice. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment - Thanks for your explanation. Maybe I should have asked Alexandar before nominating this, but it's been interesting to learn more about the criteria you all use to evaluate photos, so in that respect, I'm not sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)