Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Onion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Onion

Onions on a white background
Onions on a white background

The soft lighting and selective focus makes this quite an interesting image IMO. Makes a perfect lead image on the Onion article

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not voting yet, because I am not on my good monitor, but the image seems too light/bright. I can see that the highlights are not blown, but the amount of contrast between the background and the highlights is distracting. Also the DoF is a little shallow. It looks pretty with the background onions out of focus, but the tip of the foreground onion is blurred. For encyclopedic purposes, it may have been better going for a smaller aperture so we could see the detail on all the onions. The photo looks professional, like stock photography, sure, but I'm torn on if something like that is encyclopedic.--Andrew c 22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    I have taken a photo to try and address these issues. Since it is one of my first images, I have posted a request for comment (peer review) at Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Yellow onions. Input would be greatly appreciated.--Andrew c 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Another great photo by Fir. As far as the DoF, I think the artistic slant is good and doesn't make the image unencyclopedic. The foreground onion is clean enough -- though there is a bit of detail lost at the tip. Adding the variety to the caption would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody.pope (talk • contribs)
    • Sorry --Cody.Pope 01:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andrew c's reasoning. It looks overly bright and DOF is too shallow. Would suggest a similar picture taken at a smaller aperture, less exposure, and maybe have one of the onions peeled or partially peeled? More encyclopedic that way. Compositionally it's very nice, and agree it would make a nice stock photography-type image if the brightness were dialed down. -- Moondigger 00:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, that sounds good. Maybe cut one of the onions in half to get a cross section? Yeah.--Andrew c 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It's a good photo, but I think it could better illustrate the concept if there were two onions in focus, rather than just the one. As it is we only get a clean shot of half an onion, while the rest are just background without adding any real information. Severnjc 02:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For encyclopedic porposes it would be nice to have one of them cut in half, and a slightly higher DOF. --Dschwen 06:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Agree with Dschwen about having one of them cut in half to reveal the layers of the onion. Otherwise a pretty classy shot - a minor issue is the texture of the surface in the shadow of the onion but not big problem obviously. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--James 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Good composition, but the DOF and lighting could be improved. I'd like to see more contrast, and possibly the inner layers. --Tewy 02:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support Good picture, but a cross section of the onion would be a very encyclopedic addition. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)