Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Punica granatum

Pomegranate (Punica granatum)

 * Reason:This is a nomination partially to advertise two rich and underused resources: biolib.de, a repository of old, mostly out-of-print biology books, and Otto Wilhelm Thomé's work on German, Austrian and Swiss plants in particular. I picked one that is both attractive and easy to clean up (since most original scans have the common dark edges). There are two versions: I prefer the version with the yellowed, somewhat uneven paper, but there is also an edit with white background. (The original is here.)
 * Articles this image appears in:Pomegranate
 * Creator:Otto Wilhelm Thomé, 1885
 * Nominator: trialsanderrors


 * Support &mdash; trialsanderrors 07:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Version 1 I like it. Nice and clean, high-resolution, no noise, yada-yada etc. etc. &mdash;  Wii  Willie  Wiki  →(Talk) 14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Original Tomer T 14:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Either. This is another pomegranate FP, but it is a photo, so no need to fear overlap.--HereToHelp 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support version 1, sharp clean image.-- Dakota 03:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original. That is indeed an excellent resource.--ragesoss 05:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original only. The second one looks anachronistic, since paper was never completely white like that before bleach. Chick Bowen 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In 1885, paper was (sometimes) plenty white; color like in this "original" (which has been retouched already and may have had an unknown amount of color correction to enhance the red even before trialsanderrors worked on it) would be a combination of aging discoloration and a not-super-white but probably much whiter original color. Still, I mostly agree with you.--ragesoss 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear--yes, the paper will have darkened considerably, but the background of the second picture is, essentially, blank—i.e., not like paper at all. Chick Bowen 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The original of my edit is directly from the biolib source. Looking at their gallery as a whole, they certainly didn't do any editing to their images. Of course the scanner setting might have contributed to the high saturation, but I don't see eveidence that all their images are oversaturated. I agree with Chick that the white background is digital white. ~ trialsanderrors 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)