Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blushing Bride Hibiscus

"Blushing Bride" Hibiscus




Hibiscus syriacus, "Blushing Bride" variety, which appears on the Hibiscus syriacus page. I took this photo last summer (2005) while on holiday in Texas. It may require some cropping or other adjustments, but it is provided here in the full-size JPG image as produced by my camera. It may be that the more distant blossom being cut-off will disqualify the photo, but the fact that it is outside the zone of focus may mitigate the defect.

Unfortunately, the blossom had already begun to "fade" for the day when I took this, but I think it is, nevertheless, a beautiful shot of a popular variety of Hibiscus--even if it does not qualify as a featured picture. Before submitting, I searched long and hard for any other "good" photo of this variety of Hibiscus and found none. It is amazing how poor the photography is on most horticulture sites.

-- moondigger 03:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Self-Nominate and neutral. - N3RUS 11:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Uploaded an edit. I changed the framing, cropped it, and made some minor color variations. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?)  16:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Poorly framed, for one. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not very sharp, flower past its prime. (PS: Keep non-panoramas to the right and smaller, please. I moved it.) --Janke | Talk 05:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, I don't think cropping will turn this into an FP. Nice flower, but I think you've probably identified the flaws in the nom. --jjron 09:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Gorgeous plant, but the photo is too blurry. --Pharaoh Hound 11:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The framing and focus/DOF are the biggest issues, I think. If you have access to another Hibiscus syriacus, give it another try. -- moondigger 13:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurred- Adrian Pingstone 14:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Very impressive, Skywalker. The force is strong with you. :) Still not enough to merit support, IMO, but a big improvement in framing and a reasonable improvement in brightness/color balance.  Focus/DOF are still issues. Nice photoshopping, though. -- moondigger 20:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks. :) Personally, I think the unfocused blossom is a bit distracting in both the original and my edit, but cutting it out might be a little too drastic. I agree that another shot of the same plant would be good. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?)  22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks very much for the useful input.  N3RUS 23:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The depth of focus here is my main concern, but the background is also sort of dull among other things. --Mad Max 04:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)