Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rhodotus palmatus

Rhodotus palmatus

 * Reason:High resolution, striking, clear photo of an unusual mushroom.
 * Articles this image appears in:Rhodotus
 * Creator:Sasata


 * Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've performed noise reduction on the image (over the top of the original) as I found it improved things considerably without affecting detail. But if you prefer, you can revert it. I could upload it as an edit. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok by me, thanks for the cleanup. Sasata (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Since it´s part of my favorites, maybe I´m not objective enough. - Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ..._ Ξ_         .   --  15:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You identified it as one of the best shots in Wikipedia. I don't see how that prevent you from saying the same thing here. You wouldn't be objective if you were the creator, the nominator, or had another interest in seeing this nomination pass (such as wanting an FP in your pet article). Even then, none of this prevent people from voting (the nom always vote, we have many self-nom, and others similar cases...). In the unlikely case that we do notice bias, others will point it out and deal with it accordingly. So don't worry and feel free to vote. If your vote has valid argument to support it, i don't see any problem. Ksempac (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  wadester 16  14:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I really like the picture, even if it has some things that makes it less suitable to be a featured picture; therefore, I could give a support vote, but being more objective: I think it should have a reduced or no blur at all. In the upper part there is some blur and it would be great if the picture lacks of that blur. Perhaps with a lower lens aperture? - Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ..._ Ξ_         .   --  04:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support: Great picture, looks fantastic, has good EV, but I have a few problems. Firstly, could the green splotches on the left side of the mushroom be remove? Or significantly altered? Because that stood out as a distracting feature when I analysed the top of the mushroom. Also, the little dirt/seeds/whatever on the top is a bit distracting as well, but I doubt that can be helped. Anyway, great picture, great comp, overall, great picture apart from the points I just mentioned. Jerry teps (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I find the blurred top to be a bit too distracting, a bit more DOF would have been great. But the shot still capture the unusual structure very well and that's what matters. Note that i would oppose an edit which removed the green things on the mushroom. Nature isn't and shouldn't be all cleaned up. Ksempac (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support. When I added this article to the fungi portal, I actually considered nominating the image/reccomending it for nomination myself. A wonderful, wonderful photo of a great specimen. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, it's late and both my monitor and eyes stink. But is it just me or does this have substantial artifacting? Makeemlighter (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Wonderful and useful (here) picture. I can't see the artifacting and the issues that Jerry teps has noted to me are not detracting - Peripitus (Talk) 08:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Quality is lacking at full size, good enough for me otherwise. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support It's a wonderful encyclopedic image, not too hot at 100% but lovely viewed @ 1600px, ie decent FP resolution. Let's not penalise those who upload full-res files, esp from compacts... --mikaultalk 04:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of weak supports, but seems sufficient. :-) -- wadester 16  19:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)