Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Schneerflocken

Schneerflocken
Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2010 at 13:44:51 (UTC)
 * Reason:Best snow flake image I can find, and a beautiful image
 * Articles in which this image appears:Snow
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena/Weather
 * Creator:Sara2


 * Support as nominator --Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as long as this is the best image that we have of a giant snowflake. Nergaal (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are other potential candidates, which, IMO(!), aren't as good here and [here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Snow_crystals_2b.png]. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps it's unavoidable with something so small, but there are depth of field and chromatic aberration issues if you look closely. Perhaps a tighter crop or lower resolution would help mitigate these.--RDBury (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One snowflake is pretty much in focus, but yea, the colours around the edges are a bit funky. As I said, it's the best image we've got. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it is the best image we've got, the best image we've got is not necessarily FP-worthy. Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The main subject is tiny? J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The main subject is tiny. Snow flakes are. :P Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the present state of the art of macro photography and the ubiquity of snowflakes in many areas of the world, I don't see why we should restrict ourselves to something taken by a Canon PowerShot G10, when I'm sure that many Wikipedians have the equipment to take photographs of snowflakes with far superior magnification and resolving power. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I am of the opinion that these are far superior and more suitable for encyclopedia use. Other reasons to oppose this picture include: compositional problems (the Dutch angle works poorly for a snowflake); main subject is tiny; longitudinal chromatic aberrations; lateral chromatic aberrations(!); insufficient depth of field; poor sharpness; excessive image noise. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The linked images are far too low resolution for a FP. They are also taken completely out of context. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only true "context" for a snowflake is in a cloud, where they form. Besides, the portion of the presently nominated image that actually shows the subject is no bigger than the linked images. Of course, I am not saying that the linked images should be an FP; I am merely saying that, since I believe the presently nominated image to be inferior to images that are not FPs, I strongly oppose the nomination. Purpy Pupple (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This image is beautiful, great quality, nice EV. Purpy Pupple makes a valid point, but those images aren't in a natural environment.  This gives a good sense of scale, while showing great detail.  --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The subject is partly overexposed and the background and foreground are distractingly overexposed/underexposed. There is also a huge amount of noise and the subject is very small within the image frame. - Zephyris Talk 09:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't have one any more, but it is a subject begging for photos with an MP-E 65mm. eg Noodle snacks (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I hope to see this at WP:VPC if it fails here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The snowflakes are too small and the other bits of show covering the branch (I think its a branch at least) are distracting. It is an excellent picture; however, and may qualfy to become a WP:VPC --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   05:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be a handrail, not a branch. Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)