Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Flowers Closeup 2800px.jpg

Swamp Milkweed Flowers

 * Reason:High quality closeup detail shot, beautiful composition, high encyclopedic value.
 * Articles this image appears in:Monarch (butterfly), Asclepias incarnata, and Asclepias
 * Creator:Ram-Man


 * Support as nominator RM 01:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support -- It is such a lovely picture but the ONLY two things that detract from it is the fly and that some of the petals are focused on while others are fuzzed up with the background a touch. I still think that it is a deserving picture though. --24.26.221.10 (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is nearly a 1:1 macro shot, so the DoF is shallow for a subject with such depth, but I used a small aperture to maximize it. -- RM 11:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please log in to vote. --jjron (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, what's the size of this flower? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Each flowers would fit in a 6mm cube. They are quite small.  With a sensor size of 23.7x15.5mm, this is close to a 1:1 magnification (a flower should take up 38% of the image height, however the flowers are leaning, so it is difficult to judge the magnification of the closest flowers). -- RM 16:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to technical weakness: DOF is much too narrow, nearly nowhere in focus. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are going to cite a technical weakness, here is the technical explanation: this was shot at f/13 on a 6MP 1.5x sensor. If I had used a smaller aperture, diffraction would have decreased the overall resolution to below the 6MP threshold.  I intentionally chose this to prevent image softening.  At this magnification, the DoF is very shallow regardless of the aperture. Even if I had shot at f/16 or f/22, the DoF would still be shallow.  It could be increased by maybe 5mm at f/22, but resolution would be severely degraded to about 2MP.  There is more than enough DoF for encyclopedic value.  You can see all of the flower parts in maximal sharpness and you can see the shape of the bloom. -- RM 16:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent pic, I don't think DOF is an issue here. Clegs (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with Clegs: a fine encyclopedic shot. Depth of field is sufficient for identification.  Durova Charge! 09:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support DOF is enough for enc shot--Base64 (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)