Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leucanthemum vulgare

Ox-eye daisy

 * Reason:We already have a FP of a related flower, Image:Leucanthemum paludosum May 2008.jpg, but heck, I really like this picture! PRETTY! Super high-res too. So kill me. ;)
 * Articles this image appears in: Leucanthemum vulgare
 * Creator:Ram-Man


 * Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While I agree the flower-head is well-photographed, I really would like to see some of its stem - as it is, it looks like the flower is just kind of floating there, like a UFO. Too much "bokeh". Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that the stem is actually directly under the flower and thus would not be visible, as that's how daisies typically grow (with the flower facing directly up). Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support well done. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 21:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Original - its a little underexposed - the petals should be white but some of them definitely look grey. Ideally it should be reshot with less harsh lighting to reduce contrast on the petals. Mfield (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 Mfield (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On my Mac, the original looks better, on my PC, edit1 looks better. Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are either of them calibrated? The original looked too dark on both my calibrated Mac and PC. There's going to be a difference between the two platforms if they haven't been adjusted as the Mac and PC standard gammas are different. All that said I adjusted it with reference to the histogram. Mfield (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. The "bokeh" is simply the depth of field choice of showing only the flower, and the harsh lighting is natural.  I think the flower is beautiful and the photograph is well-executed. Superm401 - Talk 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support (edit 1) I enjoy the flecks of pollen. smooth0707  (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 Looks good now. FWIW, there is no such thing as "too much bokeh" (it's a quality of a lens), but I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday that ideally some connection from the subject should be made so that it isn't "floating". Thegreenj 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, you know what I mean: If we could see the stem, or if the ground was in slightly better focus so it was clear that it was taken from straight overhead, it would make the image better, I think. It's by no means a bad image - the detail of the flower is excellent. I just find those details too distracting to count it as the best image work :/ Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose technical details aside (like the harsh daylight), this is a really boring photo of an incredibly common flower. —Pengo 00:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that you feel it looks boring, but it's clearly encyclopaedic. Even (or especially?) common flowers are notable. Keep in mind that English is spoken in many parts of the world, and not all of them have daisies. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's found in Europe, Asia, North America, Australia and New Zealand. Even the Latin name means "Common". For such a common subject, you'd have to expect a particularly compelling, aesthetically pleasing, shocking, impressive, or just highly informative image. (criteria 3). —Pengo 12:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 High quality, giant res, encyclopedic. Spencer  T♦C 01:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. For me, an ideal illustration of a plant would include the vegetative parts. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Nice, but boring. Rj1020 (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 06:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)