Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Thumb-Unknown yellow flower at the mouth of Titus Canyon.JPG

Yellow Flower at Titus Canyon
Taken by mav and is currently orphaned (how sad) - Burgundavia 21:57, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) +5 / -3 / 3 neutral or commons -- Solipsist 13:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. - Burgundavia 21:57, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * From the top of this page: "the images featured on Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article." Oppose at least until it does . &mdash;Korath (Talk) 22:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Now at Death Valley National Park. One of my favorite photos, btw. --mav 23:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support striking. Very striking. Circeus 01:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Striking and shows how wildly the environment in the Death Valley can differ between places. Other places in the valley would be too hot for the flower to grow. Mgm|(talk) 08:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too small, too compressed. Also, the sky is a washed out and the flower seems too dark. Would consider supporting a less compressed version. Matthewcieplak 09:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by too small and compressed? Would a higher resolution version with a crop more focused on the subject be better? The background is intentionally out of focus - those two effects help to keep interest in the subject and the rubble foreground. The whiteness directly behind the subject are hazy clouds. --mav 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As for "small," I like my FP's to blow up and stay crunchy, even in milk, though I make plenty of exceptions. "Compressed" refers to the JPEG artifacts (in the sky near the flower), which is fixable if you have the original. I do like the focus, but the tonal range in the background is washed out. Complementarily, the flower lacks brightness, because it is apparently in the shade while the background is in the sun. It's really difficult to get good tonal range in that kind of lighting, which is a shame because the composition and subject have so much potential. Matthewcieplak 06:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Enochlau 10:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Same image but under another angle of view giving a sight to the "death" valley lying behind the flower would be imo much better --Bricktop 23:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Death Valley is behind the subject. But the subject of the image is the flower, not the valley. --mav 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it isn't in an article about the flower. BrokenSegue 19:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice pic. - Darwinek 10:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I really would rather support - I've liked this photo for a while (thought it had been nominated before, but I guess I've just seen it on Mav's pages). Trouble is I'm not sure it illustrates Death Valley National Park particularly well. Desert might be better, but to me it is more of a symbolic picture for something like hope. It would nicely illustrate 'The tenacity of life in adverse conditions' - I would have thought we had a page a bit like that somewhere but I am not sure where. -- Solipsist 16:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Desert wild flowers have that effect on people. :) I was simply amazed to see this one single young flower with absolutely nothing alive around it for many meters, growing from a pile of rocks with no noticeable soil or moisture nurturing it. So I just had to get on the flower's level and snap some photos. Really shows the tenacity of life, IMO. Sadly I don't think we have an article yet that would be a perfect fit for this photo. --mav 01:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We might put it on Desert, or better yet, would it be an example of a Xerophyte? -- Solipsist 20:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Submit to commons instead. Pretty, striking, but does not seem to add significantly to any article. --Andrew 10:44, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Submit to commons BrokenSegue 19:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

