Support. It would have been nice if the whole thing was in focus, but I think the photo is a good representation of a pine cone, and thus gets my support. --
Lord Voldemort(Dark Mark) 20:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Good and sharp.
Enochlau 03:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Support either original or edited.
Enochlau 13:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose unless the grey-ish area of blurring can be removed from the top right. Sorry, it's a nice photo otherwise, but I can't tell if the top right is part of the background or something in front of the lens, and I find it distracting. ~
Veledan •
Talk+ new 20:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
It's got to be background. If it were something blocking the lens, I don't think it would look like that.
Enochlau 10:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Of course it's the background. Sorry for taking so long to reply but I've been on camp in Canberra for the last week. I've uploaded an edited version. --
Fir0002 02:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Supropt. Very nice indeed. —
BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-4 17:21
Neutral. As a photograph, it is a good quality photo. But as an example of a pine cone, it isn't a good specimen, very old, heavily weathered and half-decayed. I wouldn't pick this one up to keep as a
herbarium specimen, as many of the features (colour, surface texture, etc) of a fresh mature cone are already lost. In terms of encyclopaedia use, I'd only use it (alongside with a fresh specimen) to illustrate an article on
decay or
weathering; I'm afraid it isn't much use for either the
conifer cones or the
Monterey Pine articles -
MPF 11:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose depth of focus is a little to small for my taste. It would have been nice to see some seed too.
David D.(Talk) 03:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. It would have been nice if the whole thing was in focus, but I think the photo is a good representation of a pine cone, and thus gets my support. --
Lord Voldemort(Dark Mark) 20:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Good and sharp.
Enochlau 03:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Support either original or edited.
Enochlau 13:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose unless the grey-ish area of blurring can be removed from the top right. Sorry, it's a nice photo otherwise, but I can't tell if the top right is part of the background or something in front of the lens, and I find it distracting. ~
Veledan •
Talk+ new 20:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)reply
It's got to be background. If it were something blocking the lens, I don't think it would look like that.
Enochlau 10:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Of course it's the background. Sorry for taking so long to reply but I've been on camp in Canberra for the last week. I've uploaded an edited version. --
Fir0002 02:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Supropt. Very nice indeed. —
BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-4 17:21
Neutral. As a photograph, it is a good quality photo. But as an example of a pine cone, it isn't a good specimen, very old, heavily weathered and half-decayed. I wouldn't pick this one up to keep as a
herbarium specimen, as many of the features (colour, surface texture, etc) of a fresh mature cone are already lost. In terms of encyclopaedia use, I'd only use it (alongside with a fresh specimen) to illustrate an article on
decay or
weathering; I'm afraid it isn't much use for either the
conifer cones or the
Monterey Pine articles -
MPF 11:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose depth of focus is a little to small for my taste. It would have been nice to see some seed too.
David D.(Talk) 03:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)reply