- Reason
- High resolution photograph of Leucanthemum paludosum(Swamp chrysanthemum).
- Articles this image appears in
- Leucanthemum
- Creator
- Laitche
- Support all as nominator Laitche ( talk) 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question Could you specify what parts you cloned out? I haven't looked at it with my graphics app (which would zoom properly), but I don't really see anything that looks cloned over, or that would need to be. Matt Deres ( talk) 14:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here is before clone out version. (Removed the background flower on the up side.) -- Laitche ( talk) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support alternative Kyle McInnes (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support alternative Great, high quality photo. crassic
- Hi Fir, I withdrew the nomination which was including your edited version. If you would like to nominate the edited version to the new nomination, please do so. :) -- Laitche ( talk) 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Info I nominated alternative 2. The alternative 2 was made from the different oiginal image. :) Laitche ( talk) 09:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)- I withdraw this nomination. I have nominated another version. Laitche ( talk) 15:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
- Withdrawn. Julia\ talk 21:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution photograph of Leucanthemum paludosum(Swamp chrysanthemum).
- Articles this image appears in
- Leucanthemum
- Creator
- Laitche
- Support all as nominator Laitche ( talk) 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question Could you specify what parts you cloned out? I haven't looked at it with my graphics app (which would zoom properly), but I don't really see anything that looks cloned over, or that would need to be. Matt Deres ( talk) 14:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here is before clone out version. (Removed the background flower on the up side.) -- Laitche ( talk) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support alternative Kyle McInnes (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support alternative Great, high quality photo. crassic![ talk 22:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think people tend to overcompensate with white objects in order to avoid the dreaded "blown highlights" oppose and end up with unappealing greys (as in this photo IMO). This is a white white flower and should appear as white as possible without actually blowing highlights. I've tried to address this in Edit 1 which has brightened the petals without blowing them (you can check the histogram if you don't believe me). Anyway weak oppose original and alternative due to: noise; harshly lit and distracting background; off whites and only mediocre sharpness. As a easily reproducible flower shot, it really has to be of exceptional quality to be worthy of being considered an FP. Neutral edit 1 of alt since it could only address some of these issues. -- Fir0002 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Fir, I withdrew the nomination which was including your edited version. If you would like to nominate the edited version to the new nomination, please do so. :) -- Laitche ( talk) 20:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Info I nominated alternative 2. The alternative 2 was made from the different oiginal image. :) Laitche ( talk) 09:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)- I withdraw this nomination. I have nominated another version. Laitche ( talk) 15:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
- Withdrawn. Julia\ talk 21:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)