Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Magical Sakura

Magical Sakura


This image appears in the article "Sakura", and I feel that this image perfectly describes those cultural aspects that are commonly associated with Sakura trees, which are described in the main article. Plus, isn't it just beautiful to look at? I realize that the picture is very artistic and probably not viable from a scientific point of view, but the article isn't about the technical aspects of Sakura trees.


 * Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 20:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, beautiful shot --Gutza T T+ 05:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * support. It gives a wonderful idea of why the Japanese might partake in blossom viewing, and why the Japanese have been writing waka, renga, and haiku on cherry blossoms for 1,000 years. I may even use the photo in the kigo article. Blank Verse   ∅  08:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Beautiful - it surely captures the true essence of sakura trees. Enochlau 11:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support per Enochlau and BlankVerse. - Mgm|(talk) 19:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Breathtakingly beautiful.--Eloquence* 23:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- Awe-inspiring picture. TomStar81 01:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Sweet - Darwinek 08:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - It makes me want to go to Japan... --AllyUnion (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I love it. -Haon 12:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. James F. (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Apresort. Check plus. &mdash;  BRIAN  0918 • 2005-09-4 17:25
 * I hate to do this, and I know everyone disagrees with me, but oppose. I wish I could describe why I don't like this one. It looks a little, well, lurid? It just doesn't look natural to me. Raven4x4x 05:07, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not looking natural is the whole point. This is an artistic shot, not a picture for a science book. When I edited the picture, I intentionally went for an unnatural, glowing, "fairyland" sort of look. The original picture was boring and unremarkable in all respects. This is also how I saw the picture in my mind's eye when I was standing among the trees. You don't think the picture fits the theme of the article? Now you've made me cry! ;)PiccoloNamek 05:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not just that I don't think it's natural, I don't really care for the effect either. I don't know how to explain why. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. Raven4x4x 12:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Now I understand why I didn't really like this photograph when I first saw it. I had not realisd you had used a filter to jazz it up (in retrospect it is obvious). I was half squinting at it to try and figure out the detail, however, it is not there to see.  Have you considered describing the filter you applied to the photograph to get this effect on the image page. I think it would be useful for others to know.David D. (Talk) 17:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well hmph to you guys. =P At any rate what I did was duplicate the bottom layer and then set it to partial transparency (around 50-65%) and then I applied a light gaussian blur to the photograph to make it look more dreamlike. I also bumped up the red highlights as well. As for the photo itself, I still say it works perfectly in the article. It isn't a scientific article like Prunus Serrulata, (where I would never use such a picture) but rather, the cultural significance of sakura trees and their meaning to the Japanese, and I think the picture gets this feeling down perfectly. But that's just me. I'll add the technique I used on the image to its page. Well, no hard feelings, I can't win 'em all. :)PiccoloNamek 18:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, it's a great picture but i thought I was looking at a photo and something didn't quite click (excuse the pun). The effect you have created is stunning as is obvious from the support above.  Thanks for the info David D. (Talk) 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. I think a significantly altered image (however subtle) has to be very special and make a more-than-usually relevant contribution to its article to be worthy of FP, and this fits those criteria! With your addition to the image page explaining that an effect has been applied it can't cause any confusion (although personally I don't think you were under any obligation to reveal your exact method!)  ~ Veledan • Talk + new 21:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a nice pic, but camera shake and blurring on the full-size make it not good enough to feature - MPF 16:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no camera shake. The shutter speed I was using was something like 1/320 at full wide angle zoom.PiccoloNamek 18:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Twelve support votes (not including mine) and two oppose? I think we have a featured picture on our hands!PiccoloNamek 01:52, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

