Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cactus flower closeup03.jpg

Cactus Flower
Excellent detail in this close macro image of the flower of Echinopsis spachiana. Yes it is a focus bracket (8 images each at f/11), and yes it did take about 4 hrs to put together and yes I don't want to hear the term "focus bracket" again! ;-)

Trebor 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * what article does it illustrate? Debivort 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The two Fir added it to yesterday. --Dschwen(A) 05:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any listed in "what links here" on the image page - is that the best way to check? Fir: can you please include in the nomination text what article the photo illustrates, per the nomination instructions? Debivort 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please check the "File Links" section of the image page. This image appears on Cactus, though being such a detailed image it could quite conceivably be put on a flower related article --Fir0002 09:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh right - I guess I did know about that. Thanks Fir. Do please add links to the illustrated article in future noms though.. Debivort 09:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not use this to illustrate echinopsis? Debivort 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  weak support - I have no objection to the lovely image - it just seems that it doesn't illustrate cactus in a particularly encyclopedic way. This could have been any kind of flower, and I have to take Fir's word for it that it is otherwise a cactus. Debivort 09:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, beautiful picture Booksworm Talk to me! 08:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support. four hours, eh? Appreciate the effort, but no alternative pictures this time? ;-) The pic lasted a few hour in flower until someone moved it to cactus. Anyway, the pollenthingies in front are pretty blown, and the whole pic is a bit confusing. I have trouble seeing the 3D arrangement, in particular of the tentacle structure in the middle(?). I hate to say it, but a slightly shallower DOF would hint a sense of perspective... --Dschwen(A) 12:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think that being beatiful is enough to reach FP statuts. The picture is confusing and there seems to be no consensus about its enc relevance. Alvesgaspar 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Another great pic by Fir0002 .Bewareofdog 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Good, but it would be better if it showed this in the center of the whole flower, for scale or positioning information. Ilikefood 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The technical merits are many and I think it would do quite nicely in articles about flower reproduction. -Fcb981 01:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This is a really good image and would look excellent!  Telly   addict  17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support Technically brilliant but not very big on the Wow factor.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  03:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)