Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Fringed Tulip
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Fringed Tulip
It seems to be FP quality to me. Image by Pharaoh Hound. It appears in Tulip, as well as my userpage.
Pros:
- Good lighting
- High resolution
- Good saturation
- Sharp focus
- Great Picture
Cons:
- The angle may not be very engaging
- The focus is on the center of the flower, rather then the fringing.
Comments and criticism are welcomed (in fact, I would be grateful).
- Nominate and support. - Pharaoh Hound 20:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
- Unfortunatly the bottom part is out of focus and the color seems wierd to me for some reason. -Ravedave 03:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- The bottom part is quite out of focus, and there is a distracting blue shape underneath. It's otherwise a nice photo, except that generally it seems to be convention *not* to shoot straight downwards, but rather, sideways. It just works better? Stevage 11:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- The blue spot beneath is the vase the flower was in, would it be better if I removed it? --Pharaoh Hound 13:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Generally speaking, flower photos look better as "natural" as possible - preferably while still living ;) Probably better to just avoid vases and so forth in future photos, unless you're taking photos of flower *arrangements* or it's particularly appropriate for some reason. Stevage 08:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would have to cut the flower to get a decent background, however these tulips are still in bloom and I may try to get a better photo. I'm sure I can figure out a way to get a good background. --Pharaoh Hound 12:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, flower photos look better as "natural" as possible - preferably while still living ;) Probably better to just avoid vases and so forth in future photos, unless you're taking photos of flower *arrangements* or it's particularly appropriate for some reason. Stevage 08:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
Seconder:
