Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pulsatilla alpina fruit

Pulsatilla alpina fruit

 * Reason:Other similar photos I have seen have been top-down views, and I believe the side view gives a far better impression of the plant. It also gives a clearer image, allowing the details of the hairy achenes to be seen. I think the quality of the image is up to scratch for being a featured picture.
 * Articles this image appears in:Ranunculaceae, Pasque flower, Pulsatilla alpina
 * Creator:SiameseTurtle


 * Support as nominator --SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 per comments at PPR. Article use could be improved, for example probably no need for two almost identical images (at thumbnail) piled on top of each other here. Maybe could be used in achene if that's correct. --jjron (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support A bit dull at thumbnail but pretty good when viewed at larger sizes. Reminded me of visiting an alpine garden at similar altitudes in Austria years ago. Background is a bit busy. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original, strong oppose edit: Haven't we agreed downsampling is pretty much always a bad idea? And this is a particularly aggressive downsample, taking it to barely within the required size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 16:28, 31 July 2009
 * Original could do with the levels of the alt imo (I didn't nominate a preference). Noodle snacks (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make the image a bit more vibrant - see alt 2 (sharpened) and alt 3 (not sharpened). I wasn't sure which was best though, which is why I've put both up. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What blithering nonsense. No "we" haven't agreed that downsampling is a bad idea, and the edit is well within the size limits, approximately the same size as images provided by many of our most prolific contributors. --jjron (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit per Shoemaker's Holiday. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original, definitely oppose edit 1: Edit has been downsampled too much and possibly oversharpened, as well.  Original is perhaps a little dull but it still meets the criteria for me.   Mae din \talk 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've black point adjusted the original. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know all the technical lingo. Could you tell me what this means? SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please tell us what the difference between the new edits are. The left circled slider in is the black point adjustment in photoshop. I adjusted the image so the dark areas correspond to a brightness vector of (0,0,0) rather than (20,20,20) or something. The result is greater contrast. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrast was edited in both, but only edit 2 was sharpened (though they were done at different times and I may have done the contrast in each slightly differently) SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original. Good EV, nice composition, good license. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

-- wadester 16  19:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)