Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pholiota squarrosa 4.JPG

File:Pholiota squarrosa 4.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 17:23:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pholiota squarrosa 4.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pholiota squarrosa 4.JPG

•  Info all by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Balanced composition, good focus, lovely lighting. Steven Walling 19:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support why not! --Citron (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral very good lightning (but a bit underexposed), nice quality, but unbalanced composition. Disturbing wood at the bottom and bokeh in the background. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Ggia (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose, I prefer the composition below, and this one is more underexposed. --Relic38 (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose See the comments in the next image (alt)--Miguel Bugallo 21:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per myself below. You could also shoot on an overcast day. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Alt

•  Info Edit by Muhammad --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral except the underexposure the same critique as above, sorry... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Cropped out the wood. Looks much balanced now --Muhammad (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The wood portion can be cropped out but it doesn't bother me --Muhammad (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Shocking news... it's not Pholiota squarrosa, but Hypholoma fasciculare. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I like that there's more focus on the subject in this one. --IdLoveOne
•  Support per Muhammad--MASHAUNIX 19:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral, composition and detail are good, however it's just a little underexposed. If this was a subject that could possibly run away before your next shot I'd understand. In this case there is plenty of time to get a better shot. --Relic38 (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Ggia (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Relic38. + White balance: I can understand the light of sunset if your image is a landscape. But if your image is a mushroom... --Miguel Bugallo 21:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not right, but I am not in agreement with the white balance--Miguel Bugallo 21:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also overexposed (I see it with adobe lightroom 3.0)--Miguel Bugallo 21:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was actually quite close to sunset. It was taken about 6:45 or so and the sun was not to far above the horizon. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose The background is too bright. Get a reflector or use a flash. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)