Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Citrus Fruits
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Citus Fruits
A picture of various slices of citrus fruits. Taken by Scott Bauer of the Agricultural Research Service. It's relatively good quality, and quite encyclopedic. Appears in Citrus and Sphere packing.
- Nominate and support. - NauticaShades 13:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Grapefruits, Oranges, Limes & Lemons, I've tried them all (being from Florida). These look good to me. | AndonicO 15:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose There is a lot of "dust" on the fruits AND on the white background. The lime on the lower left corner as a bit of a fruit under it that is very displeasing to the eye (that way it is made, it almost look like a stitching error, even if it's not that). This picture feels also like it could use a little more contrast and seems to lack resolution. PYMontpetit 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose this image looks horrid at 100%. Like it has been artificially enlarged and posterized (or maybe it was converted from a GIF or something with a very limited bit/color field).--Andrew c 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don't be silly. You could have easily looked at the original image (a 1MB JPEG file) to verify that no enlargement has taken place: rather the original image was cropped to its present size, the background was deliberately overexposed to get rid of the film grain, and furthermore it was denoised and sharpened. Had you actually looked at the original image, you would have seen that it doesn't have good contrast and tonal range to begin with (the median pixel value is 216), which is not surprising given that it was shot directly against an illuminated surface. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, I was just saying what it looked like. As if it had been enlarged and posterized. We both agree the image was originally poor, and you can't make magic out of something like that. The 'effects' and retouching don't help, so I still oppose it, even if it wasn't actually enlarged (but just looks it).--Andrew c 03:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Don't be silly. You could have easily looked at the original image (a 1MB JPEG file) to verify that no enlargement has taken place: rather the original image was cropped to its present size, the background was deliberately overexposed to get rid of the film grain, and furthermore it was denoised and sharpened. Had you actually looked at the original image, you would have seen that it doesn't have good contrast and tonal range to begin with (the median pixel value is 216), which is not surprising given that it was shot directly against an illuminated surface. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose -- too much dirt/dust. Clean it up and I'll support. howcheng {chat} 17:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Guys, This is already a wikipedia featured picture --Vircabutar 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure? It's a commons FP, I don't think it's a Wikipedia one. --jjron 07:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose At first glance I wanted to support this, but a full resolution the noise and dust are too great. And this is not a FP here, but on the commons, which has different FP criteria. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
