Celosia cristata (yellow toreador)Edit 1: Cropped version
It shows the flower with details. I particularly like the focus on the object. Furthermore, the "development cycle" of the species is observable at the background. (are you guys buying that?) One possible problem is that the main subject is not at the center. Tried to get some help at peer review but nobody's there.
Also placed at page
Celosia. The page itself needs lots of work but I sincerely believe the photo illustrates the page's subject well.
Nominate and support. -
__earth(
Talk) 09:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment (I'm too chicken to commit myself early :)) - it's certainly a good photo, but it actually lacks detail closeup - does it need a sharpen? By comparison,
these plant photos are just that bit sharper and the flower in focus stands out more from the background. However, we should give someone else a go...:)
Stevage 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Well, the thumb version doesn't show much detail. The larger version at
Image:CelosiaCristataYellowToreador.jpg is pretty sharp, considering that I focused on the crest, leaving the background blurred. But I'll try to sharpen it in Photoshop and see what will happen next. Thanks for the comment.
__earth(
Talk) 11:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A good photo. Very nice celosia, I'm not familiar with the cristata type, my family only grows plumosa, but this makes me more interested. It could be cropped a bit more. --
Pharaoh Hound 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support the Cropped version. Great, I'm happy with it! --
Pharaoh Hound 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. I would prefer deeper focus; makes me a little queasy as is.
Mooveeguy 17:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. I would prefer a tighter crop around the main flower or a deeper depth of field. If you want to keep the background, however, don't center the subject. howcheng {
chat} 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
How about the cropped version? Is it better?
__earth(
Talk) 10:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Hmm, it's still not up to FP standards IMHO. Now I think it needs a shallower depth of field (yeah, I'm inconsistent). Good try, though. The subject matter is intriguing so maybe you can play around with the angles and depths of focus and see if you can't come up with something better. howcheng {
chat} 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose I like the pic a lot but not enough to see it as FP -
Adrian Pingstone 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose per howcheng. The flower doesn't really stand out, which gives the picture overall a relatively bland appearance.
bcasterlinet 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Flower photos need to be really exceptional. And I know I'm biased, but I much prefer the Tulip nomination below. Nice pic for it's article tho --
Fir0002www 04:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is a wonderful flower and good photo, but unfortunately I can't support. The hi-res version shows the flower to be a bit unfocussed and with too much noise in the background. I tried sharpening it and got the flower way better, but it would take a fair bit of work to get both flower and bg right. BTW I would buy the 'development cycle' argument if everything in the bg wasn't so blurred at hi-res. --
jjron 10:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Celosia cristata (yellow toreador)Edit 1: Cropped version
It shows the flower with details. I particularly like the focus on the object. Furthermore, the "development cycle" of the species is observable at the background. (are you guys buying that?) One possible problem is that the main subject is not at the center. Tried to get some help at peer review but nobody's there.
Also placed at page
Celosia. The page itself needs lots of work but I sincerely believe the photo illustrates the page's subject well.
Nominate and support. -
__earth(
Talk) 09:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment (I'm too chicken to commit myself early :)) - it's certainly a good photo, but it actually lacks detail closeup - does it need a sharpen? By comparison,
these plant photos are just that bit sharper and the flower in focus stands out more from the background. However, we should give someone else a go...:)
Stevage 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Well, the thumb version doesn't show much detail. The larger version at
Image:CelosiaCristataYellowToreador.jpg is pretty sharp, considering that I focused on the crest, leaving the background blurred. But I'll try to sharpen it in Photoshop and see what will happen next. Thanks for the comment.
__earth(
Talk) 11:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A good photo. Very nice celosia, I'm not familiar with the cristata type, my family only grows plumosa, but this makes me more interested. It could be cropped a bit more. --
Pharaoh Hound 16:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support the Cropped version. Great, I'm happy with it! --
Pharaoh Hound 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. I would prefer deeper focus; makes me a little queasy as is.
Mooveeguy 17:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. I would prefer a tighter crop around the main flower or a deeper depth of field. If you want to keep the background, however, don't center the subject. howcheng {
chat} 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
How about the cropped version? Is it better?
__earth(
Talk) 10:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Hmm, it's still not up to FP standards IMHO. Now I think it needs a shallower depth of field (yeah, I'm inconsistent). Good try, though. The subject matter is intriguing so maybe you can play around with the angles and depths of focus and see if you can't come up with something better. howcheng {
chat} 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose I like the pic a lot but not enough to see it as FP -
Adrian Pingstone 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose per howcheng. The flower doesn't really stand out, which gives the picture overall a relatively bland appearance.
bcasterlinet 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Flower photos need to be really exceptional. And I know I'm biased, but I much prefer the Tulip nomination below. Nice pic for it's article tho --
Fir0002www 04:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is a wonderful flower and good photo, but unfortunately I can't support. The hi-res version shows the flower to be a bit unfocussed and with too much noise in the background. I tried sharpening it and got the flower way better, but it would take a fair bit of work to get both flower and bg right. BTW I would buy the 'development cycle' argument if everything in the bg wasn't so blurred at hi-res. --
jjron 10:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply