34:
46:
194:
Oh come on - shot at f/20 and still complaints on the DOF? Please have a bit of consideration of the technical limitations. It's not a case where a better image could be taken (beyond cutting lily and constructing a careful studio environment and using a focus bracket - which needless to say is
291:
Incorrect - the focus is near perfect. The blurring of the image is simply because you can't have everything in focus - and this is exacerbated in macro, and again exacerbated in DSLR cameras with their larger sensors. The blurring of the background is a natural and
380:
I find it hard to see what's what, and get the feeling the photographer was hunting for a point of interest too. Garish lighting fails to distinguish the form of the individual petals and the background seems to be working against rather than
114:
233:
you think this picture fails? Calling this picture (and many of the others you have voted on) "bad" is a rather vague and ineffective argument. What specific quality problems do you think these pictures have?
460:
436:
424:
408:
393:
372:
343:
322:
300:
282:
252:
224:
199:
189:
168:
147:
122:
98:
75:
55:
This photo has great colours and sharpness - composition is also very good as it includes both the opened flower and a bud at the point of opening. Taken by
450:
17:
455:
267:
The focus is not accurate; so the picture is blurred. So in my opinion, the picture is in general impression disharmonious. Regards, —
143:
94:
185:
421:
340:
391:
129:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s
110:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s
33:
45:
385:
the subject. Oversharpening, with serious haloes everywhere, was the final straw for me, I'm afraid. --
417:
405:
336:
386:
368:
246:
164:
209:
The original is just bad, not more. Alternative 1 is not bad, but although nothing very good. —
230:
137:
88:
314:
274:
216:
402:
181:
364:
235:
444:
160:
297:
196:
133:
119:
84:
72:
83:. Crop too tight but bearable. Can we get some planty person to write a caption?
308:
268:
210:
433:
177:
104:
62:
127:
German WP has more detail: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="
56:
332:
176:, poor depth-of-field, especially on the flower to the left. --
128:
109:
431:
Promoted Image:Tricyrtis hirta - blossom top (aka).jpg
37:
Budding and opened flowers of the Hairy Toad Lily (
108:<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="
8:
327:The background is not only unavoidable, but
159:- could some parts be a little sharpened?--
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
461:Featured picture nominations/December 2007
229:Would you mind citing what points of the
44:
32:
416:. Either version. Nice macro shots! --
7:
296:result of focusing on the flower. --
451:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
81:Support original over alternative
307:The background, is quite good. —
113:For those that don't get this:
1:
437:04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
425:19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
409:15:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
394:12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
344:19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
323:21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
456:Featured picture nominations
373:07:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
301:22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
283:13:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
253:02:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
225:21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
200:10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
190:22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
169:14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
148:11:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
123:07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
99:06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
76:04:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
69:Nominate and Support Either
477:
231:featured picture criteria
52:
42:
195:rather extreme...) --
48:
36:
132:], as does Danish.
103:Proposed Caption:
53:
43:
401:. Nice pattern. —
251:
239:
142:
117:
93:
468:
249:
245:
243:
237:
140:
107:
91:
476:
475:
471:
470:
469:
467:
466:
465:
441:
440:
418:Dante Alighieri
337:Dante Alighieri
247:
236:
157:Neutral for now
39:Tricyrtis hirta
31:
28:Hairy Toad Lily
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
474:
472:
464:
463:
458:
453:
443:
442:
428:
427:
411:
396:
375:
361:Support either
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
304:
303:
286:
285:
258:
257:
256:
255:
248:Are you green?
204:
203:
202:
171:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
78:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
473:
462:
459:
457:
454:
452:
449:
448:
446:
439:
438:
435:
432:
426:
423:
419:
415:
412:
410:
407:
404:
400:
397:
395:
392:
390:
389:
384:
379:
376:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
358:
345:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
321:
318:
317:
313:
310:
306:
305:
302:
299:
295:
290:
289:
288:
287:
284:
281:
278:
277:
273:
270:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
254:
250:
244:
242:
232:
228:
227:
226:
223:
220:
219:
215:
212:
208:
205:
201:
198:
193:
192:
191:
187:
186:contributions
183:
179:
175:
172:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
149:
145:
139:
135:
130:
126:
125:
124:
121:
116:
111:
106:
102:
101:
100:
96:
90:
86:
82:
79:
77:
74:
70:
67:
66:
65:
64:
59:
58:
51:
50:Alternative 1
47:
40:
35:
29:
26:
19:
430:
429:
413:
399:Support alt1
398:
387:
382:
377:
363:Well done.
360:
328:
319:
315:
311:
293:
279:
275:
271:
240:
221:
217:
213:
206:
173:
156:
80:
68:
60:
54:
49:
38:
27:
294:unavoidable
61:Appears in
445:Categories
316:discussion
276:discussion
218:discussion
115:click here
365:Cacophony
329:desirable
238:thegreen
105:Tricyrtis
63:Tricyrtis
161:Svetovid
144:contribs
95:contribs
414:Support
403:Scouter
298:Fir0002
197:Fir0002
134:Samsara
120:Fir0002
85:Samsara
73:Fir0002
388:mikaul
378:Oppose
331:. See
309:αἰτίας
269:αἰτίας
211:αἰτίας
207:oppose
174:Oppose
131:": -->
112:": -->
434:MER-C
333:bokeh
178:Aqwis
16:<
422:Talk
383:with
369:talk
341:Talk
335:. --
241:J
182:talk
165:talk
138:talk
89:talk
406:Sig
57:Aka
447::
420:|
371:)
339:|
188:)
184:–
167:)
146:)
118:--
97:)
71:--
367:(
320:•
312:•
280:•
272:•
222:•
214:•
180:(
163:(
141:•
136:(
92:•
87:(
41:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
