Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leucanthemum Vulgare

Close up of the Leucanthemum Vulgare
Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2010 at 13:23:04 (UTC)
 * Reason:It's sharp, well composed and shows the distinct characteristics og this family of plants
 * Articles in which this image appears:Leucanthemum
 * FP category for this image:Plants
 * Creator:User:TobiasKierk (CC) / TobiasK @ WP


 * Support as nominator --TobiasKierk (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Poor lighting, subject out of focus. A weird exposure choice for this subject! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Uneven lighting, significant colour fringing, overexposure (particularly in the bottom right)... - Zephyris Talk 15:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blown highlights. — raeky ( talk 15:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I hear you guys - and I actually agree when I see the picture again. Thanks for the feedback. TobiasKierk (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - poor lighting, not in focus and patchy exposure. -- Jack ?! 16:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; by no means a bad effort, and I suspect you may well be up to offering FPs in the future, but this one's not there, as above. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is certainly not a bad picture, and looks to be a considerable improvement on the one it replaced in the article; however standards for flowers tend to be very high in general at FPC, and as stated above this is unlikely to make it. If you'd like to get feedback before nominating in future can I point you to Picture peer review, in case you don't know about it. And now let's all sit around watching this for the next eight days. --jjron (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Try again, FPC loves nature stuff like this when the quality is there, and has pretty high standards because a lot come through here. We might as well suggest speedy close unless the problems can be fixed or a nicer edited version is offered. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Comment Irrespective of focus issues, and notwithstanding that others don’t like the uneven lighting, I find this lighting to be truly beautiful; a tranquility about it. I thought I’d add those 2¢ (possibly, I suppose, because an old “personanalysis” test said I am “Immune to social pressure”). I wouldn’t mind a picture with much, much sharper focus but with lighting along these lines. I can see however, that there would be a tight tradeoff between achieving an overall bright-ish image and not blowing out highlights, so perhaps a little more shadow fill than this would be better. Greg L (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Provided you had a tripod and the flower wasn't blowing in the wind, you could do a HDR-esque combination to keep all the areas from blowing out or being too dark/light. Even-still it's possible to get the exposure right to keep the highlights from blowing and if the darker areas are too dark thats what Photoshop is for. ;-) — raeky ( talk 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment An object (say a coat) hung between the sun and the subject of your photo would have probably fixed your problems here, evening out the light. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The flower itself is still not as sharp as most of the flower images that are passed through FPC, the creator/nominator even agrees that it's not the best quality. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the center of the flower is probably as sharp as it gets with an EOS 7D and the 50mm f1.4. I should have used some more f-stops to get the edge sharper (used f2.2) - agree on that one. ;) TobiasKierk (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly I will assert that it is sharp enough. However it isn't that sharp, but not because of your excellent camera/lens. I'm guessing the focus plane is behind or in front of where it should be, probably as a result of using One Shot AF and hand-holding. Personally I'd be going to F4 or so just for the depth of field (this is for an encyclopaedia, not a portfolio). Noodle snacks (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You just linked a smaller version, that doesn't mean the full size is sharper than it seems. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  07:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that the right question is really "How much detail is present?" rather than "How sharp is it at 100%?" Noodle snacks (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)