Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rose, Sheila's Perfume, バラ, シーラズ パヒューム, (14525862372).jpg

File:Rose, Sheila's Perfume, バラ, シーラズ パヒューム, (14525862372).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2018 at 18:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Rose, Sheila's Perfume, バラ, シーラズ パヒューム, (14525862372).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rose, Sheila's Perfume, バラ, シーラズ パヒューム, (14525862372).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
•  Info created by T.Kiya - uploaded by Tm - nominated by me. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support There are other ways of photographing a flower than sticking it in the centre of the frame with leaves all around. And one doesn't have to have the flower sharp from front to back with fancy focus stacking. Here we have an good quality specimen flower with the focus on the centre of the petals. There's enough in focus to see the veins on the petals but enough sharpness variation that it looks 3D and gentle rather than the sort of technical computer-generated image one gets from focus stacking. This rose also has rather nice colour variation. Technically the red channel is blown (in the white areas, not the red/orange areas, and this issue is not uncommon in flower photos) but having fine colour detail over every part of the flower isn't the point of this photo. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Yup (although the crop might be tight) - Benh (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose While I see Colin's point and to some extent agree with it, this is going too far in the other direction, IMO. Almost nothing is sharp.--Peulle (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Peulle, I'll repeat the point I made at this nomination. This image here is an artistic presentation, while that photo was a specimen presentation. In the former, I think technical issues are less important and in the latter technical issues need to be close to perfect. Both need high quality specimens, unless "ugly" or "decay" is your subject. In the former, there needs to be something creative that appeals to the eye (such as tight crop, shallow focus, angle-of-view) while the latter is often photographically sterile and the only beauty comes from nature. -- Colin (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Comment I don't have a problem understanding your point of view. I just don't agree with it.--Peulle (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose DOF is too thin here, at least the center bit should be sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - We differ. I don't love this composition, regardless of questions of sharpness and DoF. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per nom --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Disturbing background, strange crop, and agree with the 3 previous opponents -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above --Mile (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Colin. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose While I see Colin's point, the softer focus would have been more effective on the edges of the flower. That large blurred petal close to the center is discordant. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)