Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polystichum setiferum 'Pulcherrimum Bevis'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 03.jpg

File:Polystichum setiferum 'Pulcherrimum Bevis'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2015 at 04:56:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Polystichum setiferum 'Pulcherrimum Bevis'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 03.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polystichum setiferum 'Pulcherrimum Bevis'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 03.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
•  Info Beautiful new leaf unfurling of sterile fern Polystichum setiferum 'Bevis Pulcherrimum'. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment even when it´s not a hotpixel, but the white point is disturbing and unnecessary. Good image, beyond that, it´s FP for me. --Hubertl 08:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Done. Thank you. --Famberhorst (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not really sharp --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Done. New version.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 18:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose How nice and delicate ! A pity it is unsharp, could you try another shot ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Done. Last attempt. More shots I did not.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with comments, its unsharp. --Mile (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support for me it is a FP.--Hubertl 10:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Looks like camera wasn't completly steady at 1/4 seconds. --Ivar (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose There's some considerable motion blur. Also, I don't really get the idea behind the framing: It's neither really centered nor does the way the is off-center seem to follow any specific rule or idea? --El Grafo (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: all my photos are taken on tripod with remote control.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Even if you could freeze the camera, but you can't avoid motion blur of the subject :) --Laitche (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice subject and bokeh, but the quality level is just not there, even for QI, sorry. Poco² 18:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for the comments. --Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco² 18:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)