Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Polemonium reptans

Polemonium reptans

 * Reason:Good lighting, decent DOF, very high res, sharp, good EV, and really pretty :)
 * Articles this image appears in:Polemonium reptans
 * Creator:Kaldari

Which version? MER-C 07:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit I gave the original a sharpen (hope you don't mind), I think you should chop off a bit since it looks a bit off centre atm. I've attached an edit with a mild curves and such a crop. The depth of field is a shallow, but its obviously a pretty small flower. Noodle snacks (talk)
 * Thanks for the edit. I didn't think to sharpen it, good idea. The crop looks better too. Yeah, the DOF isn't amazing, but two of the flowers are completely in focus, and several of the others are mostly in focus, so you aren't loosing any important information at least. Kaldari (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I redid the original with the following edits: cropped to put the flowers in the center, sharpened, saved at a lower compression setting (less jpeg artifacting), plus I got rid of the clarity boost I did on the RAW file since that combined with the sharpening was making the petals look too papery and brittle, when in actuality they appear quite soft. (That's why mine looks a little less contrasty that yours.) Hope I managed to improve it. Let me know if you still like your edit better. Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question How big was each flower? --Muhammad (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can get a reasonable idea from the DOF at f11, but the "flowers are 1.3cm long" according to the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then this was probably not shot at 1:1, right? If so, wouldn't it be better to show a close-up view of one flower only? --Muhammad (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can get a good idea of their size from this picture. The flowers always grow in bunches, so it seems more encyclopedic to show a bunch, IMO, even if that means not all of them are in focus. Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support for lack of better DOF. --Muhammad (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either: Ticks all of the boxes.  Mae din \talk 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Either for me. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Prefer original --Muhammad (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original. Per creators comments about what it really looks like.  Nice image.  |→ Spaully₪† 11:12, 7 April 2009 (GMT)
 * Original - BTW, I should also note that I tweaked the color on the original to be more lavender, as it matches the actual color more closely. I'm not sure how I got pure blue flowers in the first version of the photo, but if you see them in real life, there's definitely a touch of lavender. Kaldari (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 02:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)