Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Borage flower
I took this photo in an old walled garden at Southerndown in September 2005 and I've been meaning to upload it for ages. It's a sharp, detailed macro shot of a starflower, showing its structure of multiple 5-pointed stars along with the characteristic hairy sepals. I'm probably biased but I think it's attractive and eye-catching too =)
Appears in Borage, Herb garden and Edible flowers.
Created, uploaded and shamelessly self-nominated by Yummifruitbat
- Self-nominate and support - YFB ¿ 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry about this. The flower is very interesting, and the shot is attractive, but there are some minor objectable details. The depth of field is a bit shallow, so half the flower is out of focus. The way the sky and the out of focus greeny divide the page is a bit distracting. And there is something about the saturation and contrast that is also distracting. If you can recreate this shot, I'd recommend a slightly more neutral background and a smaller aperture.--Andrew c 03:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support Good picture, but I would like seeing more of the flower in focus. Great picture of the blossum however. Dark jedi requiem 06:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough of the flower is in focus - Adrian Pingstone 14:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - With respect, I don't entirely agree that the DOF in this case diminishes the encyclopaedic nature of the image. Every prominent feature of the flower is in focus in the near field, so I can't see what you'd learn about the flower from a photo with greater DOF. I had to shoot handheld and there was a fair breeze so I needed the large aperture to get a fast shutter speed. I'm afraid there's no chance of me getting a reshoot in the forseeable future, as I'm now firmly city-bound (no car, at uni). Thanks for commenting, though - if it doesn't make the grade, nothing lost. --YFB ¿ 14:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- background needs to be more uniform. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The composition is good, but as said above, the DOF is a bit shallow and the background is a bit distracting. It's a nice shot, but not a FP. --Tewy 23:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. That's really an awesome-looking flower. Valley2city 04:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose nice flower but background is too distracting SOADLuver 00:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Background is slightly distracting, but it's still a great pic.--ragesoss 01:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. I would oppose this picture due to distracting background and shallow DOF, but I just love it too much. NauticaShades 20:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted --NauticaShades 13:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)