Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Viola 'Clear Crystals Apricot'

Viola Flower

 * Reason:Very attractive, high quality image nicely demonstrating the features of a viola flower. Leaf shape is also visible without distracting from the flower as the main subject. Beautiful natural late afternoon lighting on flower creating strong contrast with dark background.
 * Proposed caption:Viola is a genus of flowering plants in the family Violaceae, with around 400-500 species distributed around the world. The flowers of most viola species are formed from five petals, four are upswept or fan-shaped petals with two per side, and there is one broad, lobed lower petal pointing downward. The flower size in this image is approximately 4cm across.
 * Articles this image appears in:Viola (plant) Cultivar
 * Creator:jjron


 * Support as nominator jjron 12:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Out of focus (not just on the leaves in the background, but on the petals too, very shallow DOF).  For a subject that is motionless, should be able to get crisper detail than this. --Bridgecross 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Bridgecross NyyDave 18:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Depth of field is narrow in this type of macro photography. Focus is on the centre of the flower. The top of petals are out of focus due to DOF as they fall away to the back. --jjron 23:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is narrow indeed but can be widened with a tight aperture. A lens at F/5 is wide open for macro photography standards and the complaints about a shallow DOF are justified.Wwcsig 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not when the oppose is based on the entire flower being out of focus, which is not the case. The voters do not seem to understand the soft texture on these flowers in real life. --jjron 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I "understand" the soft texture of the surface of the flower, and I do see that most of the flower is in focus, especially the center and lower petals, very nice. My problem is the edge of the petal along the top, when viewed at full size why does it blur into the dark background instead of having a nice sharp edge?  I see pixellation with some funny colors there. --Bridgecross 13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt there's any pixellation unless you're looking at it beyond 100% (which is meaningless); the DOF explaining the top has already been discussed. I'm not sure what you mean by 'funny colours', but if you mean the whiter areas they were part of the flower, and are there in other photos from different angles too. Before nominating I consider reasons people may oppose - for this photo a couple of reasons were the DOF issue at the top, and a misinterpretation of the soft texture as unsharpness or poor focus. You have now distinguished between these, but your original vote didn't. Given that your original vote could be misinterpreted in this way I think we could say that your original reason was perhaps at best incomplete. That the other two 'oppose' votes here simply invoke your original incomplete reason is therefore a bit of a worry, and the lack of other votes either way could be interpreted as people not particularly wanting to oppose, but unsure about supporting due to possible misinterpretation or uncertainty about your original incomplete reasoning (of course I'm just surmising here). In other words by giving your original 'incomplete' reason, you've quite probably singlehandedly sunk this nomination (which I guess is the point of your oppose anyway). --jjron 10:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well this comment was a waste of time with the nom closed as I was typing it.--jjron 10:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Nice light, composition, acceptable detail. --Beyond silence 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * support per above Muhammad Mahdi Karim 11:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bridgecross. thegreen J      Are you green?  02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 08:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)