Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hawkweed 2007-3.jpg

Image:Hawkweed 2007-3.jpg, not featured

•  Info Back to minimalism. A flower of a common Yellow Hawkweed (Hieracium vulgatum) opening to the sun rays in the morning, like many other species of Asteracea. Taken close to my house, in the city of Lisboa, Portugal. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Alvesgaspar 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment, it's very noisy, despite having been shot at ISO 100. Did you increase the exposure in a RAW converter afterwards? If so, why didn't you go back to reshoot the picture with a higher exposure setting? --Aqwis 20:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  •  Info - The noise is minimized now. It is almost inevitable to have some noise in the dark background of macro shots (this is little flower). There is the possibility of using the flash to lighten the background a little but I don't like it - Alvesgaspar 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Not really, according to your info "manual, f/18, 1/125, ISO 100, fill in flash" you did use flash - meaning to get a well exposed background you should have used no flash and relied on natural light. --Fir0002 www 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Modern Nikon flashes have the capability to control the exposure of both the focused subject and the background, but I did not use that mode. But of course you are aware of all these possibilities. -- Alvesgaspar 22:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No I was not aware of such a capability and struggle to see how it would work - as surely flashing with the output required to expose the background will blow out the subject matter. Have you got a link or something which explains this? --Fir0002 www 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • "Autofocus Speedlight SB-600". There shouldn't be difficult to find some info on the so-called "Automatic Balanced Fill-Flash (TTL-BL)". As you surely know, lighting is a critical factor is macro photography mainly because of DOF problem. That is why the flash was used. - Alvesgaspar 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Fir0002 is correct. Fill flash in this case would not be able to distingish the foreground from the background and would have burned out the flower. It would have to creat a "digital mask". Fill flash works on subject that are on the same plane and using light metering capabilities stop the flash output in order to avoid washed out areas. The use of flash in this case actually darkened the background the background and flattened the image. --Tomascastelazo 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment - And now that all of us have shown how much we know about photo technique can we please proceed to voting? The picture is under reviewing, not my phtographic knowledge. (for a moment I thought I was in WP:FPC but that was only a nightmare) - Alvesgaspar 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I like the minimalistic composition. Freedom to share 07:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think it is an image of good technical quality, but I do not find it sufficiently exceptional to acheive FP status. The lightning is not that interesting, I do not find it particularly valuable, and the front-most petals are too unsharp for my taste. -- Slaunger 11:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose As above --Karelj 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dust spots in a FP? If you choose to use an SLR, you have to correct the sensor dust spots, especially on flat areas. -- Ram-Man 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't think this image is exceptional enough to be FP material —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbc (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 December 2007(UTC)

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  not featured. Lycaon 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)