Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Oxalis triangularis Richard Bartz.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Oxalis triangularis Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Info created & uploaded + nominated by --Richard Bartz 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)- Info Oxalis triangularis is called the LOVE PLANT :)
Support --Richard Bartz 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This appears manipulated (and undeclared) to the point wherethe background looks unnatural. It might as well be a black background.No background looks like this at f/22.-- Ram-Man 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)- ??? --Richard Bartz 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why is the background so flat for such a tiny aperture? Strong manipulations should be declared with the retouched template. Also, even if this were real, this takes bokeh obsession to a whole new level. -- Ram-Man 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thats why i'am the Makro Freak ! Generating a homogenuous background is unwieldy but the ultimate perfection IMO. --Richard Bartz 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- All of the images that you linked have something in common: an out-of-focus area that adds to perceived depth. This makes them look more natural. This is too much. -- Ram-Man 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, maybe a matter of taste. I think its very special with the angle the background and the deph of field --Richard Bartz 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- All of the images that you linked have something in common: an out-of-focus area that adds to perceived depth. This makes them look more natural. This is too much. -- Ram-Man 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thats why i'am the Makro Freak ! Generating a homogenuous background is unwieldy but the ultimate perfection IMO. --Richard Bartz 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why is the background so flat for such a tiny aperture? Strong manipulations should be declared with the retouched template. Also, even if this were real, this takes bokeh obsession to a whole new level. -- Ram-Man 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- ??? --Richard Bartz 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 02:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with ram-man, looks too unnatural -- Gorgo 13:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I suggest you add it to the existing Oxalis triangularis species gallery instead of having it associated with the non-existent Category:Oxalis triangularis, cf. The Tree Of Life guidelines. -- Slaunger 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)- Info See, e.g., here for more info about the species. -- Slaunger 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Very high quality photo. Yeah the bg really looks almost too clinical, but it does not really bother me. Only vague readings on my wow-o-meter though. I think it is because the flower in itself looks very ordinary. Perhaps not a fair judgement, as every species is unique, but nevertheless... So, adding it all up I get: neutral. -- Slaunger 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)- Support amore sbalorditivo esso. Jina Lee 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with ram ram, the image is far too simple and seems unatural.-LadyofHats 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Oxalis triangularis stereoscopic Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured
[edit]
- Info Alternative stereoscopic version plus a alternative for the alternative ;-) --Richard Bartz 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Info You need a
Anaglyph (3-D glasses) to view this image - Support --Richard Bartz 01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support While I'm at it. --Bergwolf 12:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Opposeboring RBID 16:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose background -- Gorgo 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support amore sbalorditivo esso. Jina Lee 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Innovative. Freedom to share 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (Please renominate this picture, because its not clear which alternative got the support!!)
