Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gymnadenia odoratissima - Lõhnav käoraamat Niitvälja.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Gymnadenia odoratissima - Lõhnav käoraamat Niitvälja.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2015 at 17:50:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Short Spurred Fragrant Orchid
  •  Info Short Spurred Fragrant Orchid, created, uploaded and nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose According to the EXIF this was shot at f/14, yet the DoF is extremely shallow. It appears artificially (and poorly) blurred or else it was taken with extremely poor focus. Compare to this image which is technically superior. -- Ram-Man 03:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment That comparison is a bit unfair. Your "superior" favorite has over four times lower resolution with no EXIF data at all. The Orchid on my image was pretty small, so I had to get very close to take full portrait and therefore DOF was shallower than usual. But calling it artificially and poorly blurred is imho too harsh. --Ivar (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC). And that's not even important, that this species grows only in few (less than 10) places in my country and I had to hike in the Bog to find it in the perfect evening light. --Ivar (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies for the poor comparison. What I meant was this: the other image shows superior depth of field and better subject sharpness while still having a blurred background. Was this retouched? It should be declared if it was and why were the flower petals and stalk blurred (bad masking?)? But if it was not blurred, then at f/14 the focus and sharpness should be on par with the other image. Something does not add up here. And FWIW, I wouldn't support the example image as a FP. -- Ram-Man 12:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It was in my intentions to support anyway this nomination (colors, details, composition, all work for me). But I rather agree with Ivar, the quality of the Ivar's image is far much better in all points. The exemple shown by Ram-Man is certainly downssampled, and even so downsampled that we can judge correctly about the DOF, and the quality is so poor that I'm not able to say correctly what is in really in focus. Some parts are also a bit overexposed. -- ChristianFerrer 07:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The out-of-focus/blurred petals on this image are visible at thumbnail size. It's not an issue of downsampling. The other image shows that there was no reason for this image to have out-of-focus petals. -- Ram-Man 12:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. But as a user recently switched from a compact camera to a DSLR, I understand what Ram-Man stated above. It is very difficult to get reasonable DOF at 100mm if we are at closest subject distance. So we have two choices; increase the subject distance and crop the image, or use a longer lens. Choice two is expensive. Jee 03:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Gymnadenia_odoratissima_-_Lõhnav_käoraamat_Niitvälja.jpg&oldid=148470970"