Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lotus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lotus

Original - Nelumbo nucifera is known by a number of common names, including blue lotus, Indian lotus, sacred lotus, bean of India, and sacred water-lily. Botanically, Nelumbo nucifera (Gaertn.) may also be referred to by its former names, Nelumbium speciosum (Wild.) or Nymphaea nelumbo. This plant is an aquatic perennial, but if its seeds are preserved under favorable circumstances, they may remain viable for many years. It is national flower of india.
Original - Nelumbo nucifera is known by a number of common names, including blue lotus, Indian lotus, sacred lotus, bean of India, and sacred water-lily. Botanically, Nelumbo nucifera (Gaertn.) may also be referred to by its former names, Nelumbium speciosum (Wild.) or Nymphaea nelumbo. This plant is an aquatic perennial, but if its seeds are preserved under favorable circumstances, they may remain viable for many years. It is national flower of india.
Edit 1 - cropped
Edit 1 - cropped
Edit 3 - from original, noise reduction on background, LCE on flower, crop by Mfield
Edit 3 - from original, noise reduction on background, LCE on flower, crop by Mfield


Reason
Very beautiful and Crystal clear Quality Picture it meets all the FPC criteria and should be featured
Articles this image appears in
Nelumbo nucifera
Creator
Peripitus
  • Support as nominator --Alokprasad84 (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - excellent detail and high enc. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-05-20 18:20Z
  • Support- A rather excellent image, well done. ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Any Except 2. Aesthetically pleasing and relatively high quality. NauticaShades 21:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I suggest cropping from the left to remove the left-most stem.--ragesoss (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful! Ryan shell (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 2 1 Nice image! SpencerT♦C 11:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, saw the first two pictures and meant the second. SpencerT♦C 22:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hang on, hang on, hang on why are we changing the colours? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The photographer needs to clarify which of these images most resemble the actual flower with respect to colors. Edit 2 has a color balance shift that may be closer to reality but we don't know that. What was changed exactly and why? Mfield (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional support per Mfield. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I missed this one being underway. I've looked through my other photos of these flowers taken on the same day (like this one) and edit 2 is the wrong colours. Edit 1 is the closest to the actual flowers colours. From what I can see edit 2 has been created with the "auto-white-balance" option in photoshop and has not been kind to the flower. It's shifted the colours towards a blue cast that should not be present - Peripitus |(Talk)]] 02:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for the information. Mfield (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 13, Strong Oppose Edit 2 False colors per above. Mfield (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No-Brainer This is definitely a featured picture. Rj1020 (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, its not such a no brainer which version is it?! Maybe you could clarify which you are voting for. Mfield (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As of information provided by creator i withdrew the nomination of Edit 2. thanks for clearification. Alokprasad84 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we still keep edit 2 up for comparison? SpencerT♦C 22:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You can see edit 2 here. Alokprasad84 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support original or Edit 1; prefer Edit 1. Fg2 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Edit 3 also. Fg2 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose all I'm surprised by all the support for this picture: The background is very noise, and the noise level robs sharpness throughout the rest of the image. Sharpness is really not very good for a flower picture. Light is cold, lacks contrast, lacks color depth. Composition is bland, background is distracting and awkward. There seems to be some tonal compression due to high noise level. DOF is too wide (BG is not OOF enough). Compare to: This, This, This, This. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 17:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fcb - needs noise reduction in background - should be an easy task, but do it from the original camera file, please. --Janke | Talk 20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There you go, new version Edit 3 added. I went back to the original, applied noise reduction to the background, some slight local contrast enhancement to the flower, and cropped to match Edit 2. Mfield (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Any of the versions. Very nice image. |→ Spaully₪† 11:08, 25 May 2008 (GMT)
  • Support everything except for Edit 2 due to unrealistic color shift. Cat-five - talk 03:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I still prefer the crop in edit 1 (i.e. not edit 3). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Nelumno nucifera open flower - botanic garden adelaide2.jpg MER-C 09:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)