Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Milk thistle flowerhead.jpg

Milk Thistle Flowerhead
Very clear image with excellent sharpness and good subject isolation without serious DOF issues.


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support this is a very nice image, as you said clear, great subject isolation and no DOF issues. Highly encyclopedic also. Arjun  03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support per above Krowe 06:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Minor support. Small focus issues with the green petals in the back and the purple fuzz toward the back. Also it's kind of "just another flower picture" --⁪froth T C  03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support good detail. Noclip 05:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Froth. Joe 09:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. Technically good and very encyclopedic.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  20:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support It is not the most interesting flower but it is definitely a great photo non the less. 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I love your photos, Fir, but I'm just not crazy about this one. I can't really comment on the technical aspects, but I do think they're fine. However, like ⁪froth said, it's just another picture of a flower (albeit a very pretty one.) At this point, it'd take a FPC of a jungle flower to impress me with flora. --Iriseyes 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The lighting's a little harsh, but overall it does a good job of displaying the flower. -- Tewy  01:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This is a nice picture.  Nice detail on the thorns.  --Midnight Rider 22:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Another FP material from Pete's FP producing factory. - Darwinek 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Almost perfect quality (I only wish for a bit more DOF). Nautica Shad e  s  14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Exactly what I look for in a photo of a flower like this... but it doesn't "wow" me. While it's probably technically perfect, I don't find it that compelling. Perhaps a different composition or something? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. As per above. Focus is good and proves my point that every square inch of a FP need NOT be in perfect focus, but it's just not special enough for me. Sorry. --Mactographer 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above, composition is not appealing. Alvesgaspar 08:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. However, my preference is for cropping the empty space on the right and squaring it a bit (which will also improve the thumbnail detail assuming the same image width on the page). Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 06:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)