Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orchis punctulata 2.jpg/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Orchis punctulata 2.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2013 at 16:56:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support -- Gidip (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Question I also love this tiny orchids, but why did you crop the top? --Tuxyso (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is no crop at the top (there is some at the bottom though); this is the way I photographed it. I find the composition appealing. The emphasis here is more on the individual flowers and their arrangement than on the shape of the entire inflorescence. Gidip (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment I like the lights and DOF in File:Orchis punctulata 1.jpg; here it seems a bit too warm. JKadavoor Jee 08:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- weak Support I disagree with Jkadavoor: On File:Orchis punctulata 1.jpg I only see harsh flash light, the balance of ambient light and flash light (it is also softer here) is remarkable better in the nomination here. Also the colors are much better here. Although the crop is unusual it draws the attention, as stated by Gidip, on the flowers. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- weak
- I Agree with Tuxyso. Gidip (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I think the crop works, but is it possible to reduce the posterization of the blurry background? — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 12:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't see a problem, maybe you can pinpoint a specific part of the image that is problematic? Are you sure you are looking at the more recent version I uploaded from Oct first? Gidip (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I was looking at the most recent version. I marked a few areas where it's the most obvious, but it's spread relatively evenly across the background. There are many 4x4-pixel-blocks visible. The problem would probably not be noticeable if you would use the full histogram, but the lower 5-7% aren't used. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 12:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I see it now. It happens to me often in images with dark background. If you can explain how to avoid this I would really appreciate. I didn't really understand what you said about the histogram. Any simple manipulation in Photoshop or CaptureNX to fix this? Thanks. Gidip (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I neither own nor use either of these programs, so that's slightly difficult. Maybe someone else can help. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 20:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I see it now. It happens to me often in images with dark background. If you can explain how to avoid this I would really appreciate. I didn't really understand what you said about the histogram. Any simple manipulation in Photoshop or CaptureNX to fix this? Thanks. Gidip (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I was looking at the most recent version. I marked a few areas where it's the most obvious, but it's spread relatively evenly across the background. There are many 4x4-pixel-blocks visible. The problem would probably not be noticeable if you would use the full histogram, but the lower 5-7% aren't used. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 12:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't see a problem, maybe you can pinpoint a specific part of the image that is problematic? Are you sure you are looking at the more recent version I uploaded from Oct first? Gidip (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
