Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Camellia japonica NBG.jpg

File:Camellia japonica NBG.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2018 at 22:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Camellia japonica NBG.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Camellia japonica NBG.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Ericales
• Camellia japonica blossom at Norfolk Botanical Garden. All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - That's quite good. You might want to mention in your file description how big that flower is - how big was it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you, Ikan. I'm truly glad you like it. It is not very big, only about 4 inches (10 cm) in maximum diameter. Info added to file. PumpkinSky talk 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great colors, great composition, perfect saturation and rendition. Everything fits. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 0!3:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- HalfGig talk 11:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC) -- invalid double vote per Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --fedaro (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - lovely! Atsme 📞 16:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Nice to see you again Atsme ! PumpkinSky talk 17:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but I feel a centered flower taken from "above" it doesn't stand out. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Benh just for the record, it wasn't taken from above. It was taken horizontally, basically parallel to the ground. I thought of cropping out the two buds in the upper right but IMHO they really add to the photo. PumpkinSky talk 21:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes sorry. It's my poor english but I really meant "perpendicular" to it (which I think is "simple" artistically speaking, but good for encyclopaedic purposes). Also, I was looking at our current FP to see why I didn't like this one, and I think what's missing to me is more contrast, as it looks a bit dull here. And yes, the context could be more aesthetic to me, but that really is just my opinion. - Benh (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
      • @Benh: I've added more contrast. Once the cache catches up, I'd like to know what you think. Thanks for the suggestion. PumpkinSky talk 21:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support. Beautiful. --Cold Season (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose latest version but would support previous. PumpkinSky I'm not sure I understand Benh's "contrast" argument, though possibly he means more to do with separation from the background than fiddling with sliders in Lightroom. What you've done is blow the red channel. The result if you compare the throat of the flower you will see much less detail in the petals. Yes the composition is very unadventurous, so no marks for that, but the specimen is in fairly good condition and agree the buds are a bonus. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment. @Colin: Thanks for pointing that out. I see exactly what you mean. I've reverted to the previous version, or 21:22 on 27 Dec. I invite reconsideration. PumpkinSky talk 16:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support now. -- Colin (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Colin: You last nom makes my point. I like the petals much more there. Here we have less contrast, and the image is not very "punchy". @PumpkinSky: I like that you listened to (my) complaints but sometimes it's good to stick to your original ideas, no matter the votes. It the suggestion had been a clear improvement like "Way too many noise, please apply NR", it would have been something else ;) And I was the only opposer! - Benh (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Benh: I thought it was worth a try. Trying different things is how we learn. Thanks for participating in the nomination. I've been looking at Colin's recent nomination and am thinking about what I think of it ;-) PumpkinSky talk 19:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Just so readers can follow this, my "last nom" is this one and it was prompted by looking at the category when assessing this nomination. Wrt comparing this nom and mine, one is an artistic presentation and one is a specimen presentation. In the former, I think technical issues are less important and in the latter technical issues (and quality of subject) need to be close to perfect. -- Colin (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Benh, no wow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Moderate support I think it could be improved by cropping the sides to square it up. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: I wouldn't want to crop out the two buds in the upper right because as I (and Colin) mention above, I think the buds add a lot to the composition. However I would consider cropping in the left to just outside that leaf that sticks out at the 7-8 o'clock position. PumpkinSky talk 18:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@PumpkinSky: Well, if you don't want to crop out the two buds then don't do any cropping, because I think it looks best centered. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --cart-Talk 09:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Delightful detail and given that it is small, the composition is striking. Color stands out, nice and sharp. Maybe a wee bit of cropping, per nominator's comments above. Montanabw (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Order_:_Ericales