Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Abies koreana

Korean Fir (Abies koreana) cone

 * Reason:Great encyclopedic photo. Featured picture on Commons.
 * Articles this image appears in:Abies koreana, Fir
 * Creator:pl:Wikipedysta:Lestat


 * Support as nominator Darwinek (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support despite somewhat harsh lighting.--HereToHelp 15:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Good image. Bewareofdog (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The lighting is too harsh and the background is rather unappealing. Chris.B (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose by Chris.B. And, sorry, it's not very sharp, either. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• ( Happy new year! ) 22:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I think the lighting is quite good personally. The only real problem is the lack of sharpness. --Abdominator (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lighting, as well as a pretty plain composition. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure what sort of composition you envisage without loss of encyclopaedic qualities. It's a picture of Korean Fir cones. What composition would illustrate this subject better than the one you see here? Also keep in mind that composition is less of a criterion here than at Commons. The focus here is more on encyclopaedic quality. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * have a look at the example file I uploaded. While not the nicest piece of art, it illustrates what would be a better image. With background separation for the cones and with a not as boring centered composition. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a spectacular rendition, Fcb981 :). In general, I think that centered composition works well with flowers or something like this, which usually lack something to balance the composition. I'd prefer a lower viewpoint and larger aperture (as well as better lighting) to bring out the cones. thegreen J      Are you green?  19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for uploading the explanatory image. I didn't doubt the validity of your point about lighting, but on Bokeh and composition, we may have to agree to disagree. In this case, I think bokeh could lower the encyclopaedic value of the image. In fact, it's possible that the composition was deliberately chosen to show the relationship of the cone to the tree. Your suggested semi-profile composition of the pair of cones would not keep the tree trunk in view. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the trunk wouldn't be visible, but in the two versions here it certainly isn't obvious, and the semi-profile, as you tersely put it, could easily show the needles in a compelling way. Anyway, thats just my opinion after all. Your argument is legitimate, not seeing eye to eye is no problem. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - technical quality of an image of something so easy to photograph should be higher to be featured.--Svetovid (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)