Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Orange hybrid tea rose
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Orange hybrid tea rose
- Reason
- With the delisting of our previous rose FP I reconsidered uploading these and decided that I thought they hit the mark for qualty. They are interesting and well composed. I belive technicaly sound and pretty. I can't decide which of the two I like better.
- Proposed caption
- An orange hybrid tea rose in the International Rose Test Garden.
- Articles this image appears in
- Rose and Hybrid tea
- Creator
- User:Fcb981
- Support as nominator and creator Fcb981 22:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose both I see no encyclopedic value in the images. Sorry.--Mbz1 01:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Yes, don't worry, you made it suficiantly clear on the delist nom that you dont like the idea of roses as FPs. -Fcb981 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak suppport - I'm afraid I don't understand Mbz1's comment. The encyclopaedic value is clear, and I'd be inclined to make one of them the main image for Hybrid Tea. On the technical side, neither image is quite as stunningly sharp as we'd ideally like for an FP, but it's pretty close. There's also quite a lot of background noise. Preference for #1. Stevage 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not explain what I meant better. In my opinion roses are beautiful flowers, but roses are also very, very common flowers. In my opinion there are so many different kind of roses that it would be unproductive to feature every one of them. We've just finished delisting one very nice picture of Yellow Rose, which in my opinion was better than nominated images. In my opinion there is no use to delist one picture of a very common flower just to feature another.--Mbz1 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Oppose due to technical issues. I like the second one better, and think they're both sufficiently encyclopedic. But they're underexposed (check the levels in Photoshop) and have too little depth of field, as evidenced by the center of the rose being in pretty sharp focus, but dropping quickly by the time you get to the edges. I saw you used f/4.8; I'd retake it with at least f/8 or smaller. You might also sacrifice some shutter speed for a lower ISO to decrease the noise. (Side note: Nice D40! I got the D50 last year and love it.) --Peter 03:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- in hindsight I should have stoped down to f/8, I had plenty of light, still the DOF is a bit better than the rose that was just delisted and they are downsampled a bit. The exposure is fine. The pileup of pixles on the left of the histogram is just the BG, if you were to select just the flower you would see a different story. If I, say stoped up a stop, not only would the flower show a bit of overexposure but the details of the BG would become more distracting. I personaly like the dark BG but tastes very. And yes, I love my D40 also. -Fcb981 04:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry but to me it is underexposed quite badly. Also there is pretty bad noise, especially in the dark bg. Oh btw I pulled it out of the lead spot in the rose article, without a full ID it's not a very enc image --Fir0002 07:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Actually I really like the image (second more than first) with the dark background, artistically. However, for me to pass it on enc value, I want to have exactly what strain of rose it is, since most roses for sale (I think) are Hybrid Teas. Yes, the bar is high for FP roses; they are easy to photograph and there are lots of free images of them. My bar: Photographically excellent (this is close if not there), showing a specific strain of rose to add enc value, and probably some other things I'll note on other pictures. Zakolantern 16:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. 8thstar 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the second one better, but they're both underexposed and simply not very interesting to look at. Roguegeek (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
