Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DandelionMacro

Dandelion Macro
Reasons:
 * it a big, clear and beautiful image
 * it's licensed under free license
 * (added later) the house in background shows that a such beautiful thing is near us

It appears in Dandelion article and was shot by me (Paulnasca).


 * Nominate and support. - Paulnasca 18:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Although most people have only seen dandelions within the vicinity of their own homes, I'm sure people are going to oppose the picture for having a house in the background. -- brian0918 &#153;  19:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. It looks amazing! Compared to the other photos at dandelion, this one has a special colour that's hard to describe. --Menchi 21:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreee, it's just the right color. Interestingly Image:Dandelion_clock.jpg is a featured picture at the commons... Circeus 13:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree that the dandelion itself is striking, but the background is less than appealing. Sango  123  18:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Photoshop, anyone? Lupin 02:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Photoshop out the background!? A bit hard... Enochlau 03:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You could manually blur the background more (being careful not to blur the edges of the dandelion), then use the heal brush to remove some of the details, such as the windows. -- brian0918 &#153;  [[Image:MontyPythonFootLeftSmall.jpg|Ni!|20px]] 23:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I know, I'm not a photographer, so perhaps I'm wrong, but the background is, for me, one of the attractive things about this photo. It's a flower in its real setting, not in some carefully staged neutral zone, and the background is not at all distracting to me.  Trying to blur and remove the background seems to me something like taking a picture of the Houses of Parliament from the opposite side of the Thames, and then working to get Westminster Abbey out of the shot -- that's the environment (or context, if you will) in which the HoP exist.  Backyards, in my (allergic) experience, are littered with these sneeze-inducing yet attractive little flowers, and I don't see that this is anything to be rid of.  Just my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 23:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- I like it. The background adds to the overall beauty of the image, showing the flower in a natural environment. - Longhair | Talk 07:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support No qualms to have about the background IMHO Circeus 12:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 +10 / -7 -- Solipsist 19:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I love the house. In my reading of the image, the dandelion, something that we think of as small and barely worthy of notice, is magnified and transformed into thing of beauty, while the house, a thing we find vital and interesting, is shoved into the blurry background which makes it impossible to focus on. Whether the photographer intended it to or not, this image makes a statement about the relative value of these items in a striking way. (See what being married to an art historian can do to you.) Dsmdgold 02:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am of the other opinion that the house and background are distracting. The house and the tree act to create a disbalance that is uncomfortable to look at. Enochlau 03:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - The house looks fairly attractive and is well blurred. Dandelions are common in house gardens (at least in mine!) so the house is not out of context - Adrian Pingstone 06:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose the background is distracting, it's by no way a beautiful Bokeh, it's by no way a natural environment and this pic show a terrific barrel distortion. Ericd 23:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ( + ) Support Good photo, bokeh is fine and the distortion is only visible on the tree trunk. --Fir0002 06:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Look at the left of the pic... And BTW, the ground isn't horizontal. Ericd 15:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it. The house takes nothing away. This link is Broken 20:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is very nice, the colours are excellent. I don't mind the house in the background, though it would be better if the horizon was straightened. However the FP standard on flowers is quite high, and other good dandelions are available on Commons, for example Image:Taraxacum-zoom.jpg. -- Solipsist 08:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The flower in the candidate picture looks much better than Image:Taraxacum-zoom.jpg, probably because of the angle. Thue | talk 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you on the angle. You've got the better lighting too, and there is something to be said for a background that gives an urban context. On the other hand the symmetry and detail in the Taraxacum-zoom.jpg photo are rather nice. There is a temptation to replace Image:Dandilion plant.jpg in the Dandilion article, but despite its small size, it perhaps does the best job of at showing a dandilion how most people find them - growing between the cracks of some concrete. Plus it illustrates the leaves. -- Solipsist 20:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent color, sharpness and bokeh. Alight 15:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Very sharp, context is shown well. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Solipsist. The background is also a bit distracting for me. --Spangineer (háblame)  08:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * support per Dsmdgold. Djadek 19:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 00:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 20:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose It took me a while to decide but i too think the background is too prominent. It definitely draws your eye from the flower (despite the art historian liking it above ;-). Do you, Paulnasca, have anything for the same flower without the house in the background ?  David D. 21:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have another picture with the same flower Paulnasca