Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fig Leaf

Fig Leaf

Original - A fig leaf after a rainfall.

Version 2 - Less Blur.

Version 3 - Noise reduced, cropped.

Reason: Nice Pic., full res., shows detail
Articles this image appears in: Ficus
Creator: Redmarkviolinist

Support as nominator ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 22:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many parts of the image that are blurry... Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can upload different view. I'll have it up in a little while, but if there are any other comments, I'd be happy to hear them. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 22:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but both versions are very blurred. :( —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Blurry and grainy. Before nominating again, you might try uploading your pictures at Wikipedia:Picture Peer Review; they're there to help people figure out how to improve pictures for FP status (and in general). Matt Deres (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both Bottom of leaf to close to frame edge, blurring is a problem. Capital photographer (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, bad crop. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I feel a better image could be produced of such a common subject. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image on the bottom has better crop, better image quality. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. All of them are incredibly soft and 'fluffy' looking. I suspect Redmarkviolinist may be using digital zoom as they just look like they've been upsampled - badly. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My camera is 8 years old, its pretty crappy. I'm going to get a new one soon. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Canon A70 is 5 years old, but yeah, thats a good idea. A 3 megapixel Point and Shot camera is always going to struggle to meet the FPC requirements, but a good camera doesn't automatically mean Featured Pictures either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's going to have to be some picture if you're going to get a FP of a leaf. Just some advice: I find front lighting tends to make leaves look very flat; back/side lighting helps bring out some of the detail in the veins, etc. Here's one of mine to give an idea. Thegreenj 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly does not meet FP featured picture guidelines. For something that can be so easily taken, this cannot be a FP. EgraS (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry, lighting issues, and not really up to FP standards. Spencer^T♦^C 16:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]