Very clear image with excellent sharpness and good subject isolation without serious DOF issues.
- Support Self Nom. -- Fir0002 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support this is a very nice image, as you said clear, great subject isolation and no DOF issues. Highly encyclopedic also. Arjun 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Minor support. Small focus issues with the green petals in the back and the purple fuzz toward the back. Also it's kind of "just another flower picture" -- froth T C 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support good detail. Noclip 05:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Support per above
Krowe
06:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support per Froth. Joe 09:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. Technically good and very encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support It is not the most interesting flower but it is definitely a great photo non the less. Why1991 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I love your photos, Fir, but I'm just not crazy about this one. I can't really comment on the technical aspects, but I do think they're fine. However, like froth said, it's just another picture of a flower (albeit a very pretty one.) At this point, it'd take a FPC of a jungle flower to impress me with flora. -- Iriseyes 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. The lighting's a little harsh, but overall it does a good job of displaying the flower. -- Tewy 01:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is a nice picture. Nice detail on the thorns. -- Midnight Rider 22:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Another FP material from Pete's FP producing factory. - Darwinek 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Almost perfect quality (I only wish for a bit more DOF). Nautica Shad e s 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral. Exactly what I look for in a photo of a flower like this... but it doesn't "wow" me. While it's probably technically perfect, I don't find it that compelling. Perhaps a different composition or something? -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. As per above. Focus is good and proves my point that every square inch of a FP need NOT be in perfect focus, but it's just not special enough for me. Sorry. -- Mactographer 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per above, composition is not appealing. Alvesgaspar 08:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. However, my preference is for cropping the empty space on the right and squaring it a bit (which will also improve the thumbnail detail assuming the same image width on the page). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Milk thistle flowerhead.jpg Raven4x4x 06:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Very clear image with excellent sharpness and good subject isolation without serious DOF issues.
- Support Self Nom. -- Fir0002 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support this is a very nice image, as you said clear, great subject isolation and no DOF issues. Highly encyclopedic also. Arjun 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Minor support. Small focus issues with the green petals in the back and the purple fuzz toward the back. Also it's kind of "just another flower picture" -- froth T C 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support good detail. Noclip 05:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Support per above
Krowe
06:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support per Froth. Joe 09:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. Technically good and very encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support It is not the most interesting flower but it is definitely a great photo non the less. Why1991 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I love your photos, Fir, but I'm just not crazy about this one. I can't really comment on the technical aspects, but I do think they're fine. However, like froth said, it's just another picture of a flower (albeit a very pretty one.) At this point, it'd take a FPC of a jungle flower to impress me with flora. -- Iriseyes 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. The lighting's a little harsh, but overall it does a good job of displaying the flower. -- Tewy 01:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is a nice picture. Nice detail on the thorns. -- Midnight Rider 22:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Another FP material from Pete's FP producing factory. - Darwinek 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Almost perfect quality (I only wish for a bit more DOF). Nautica Shad e s 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral. Exactly what I look for in a photo of a flower like this... but it doesn't "wow" me. While it's probably technically perfect, I don't find it that compelling. Perhaps a different composition or something? -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. As per above. Focus is good and proves my point that every square inch of a FP need NOT be in perfect focus, but it's just not special enough for me. Sorry. -- Mactographer 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per above, composition is not appealing. Alvesgaspar 08:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. However, my preference is for cropping the empty space on the right and squaring it a bit (which will also improve the thumbnail detail assuming the same image width on the page). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Milk thistle flowerhead.jpg Raven4x4x 06:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)