Support as nominator --
Eli+ 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. An attractive photograph, but the depth of field is extremely shallow. I would suggest stopping down the aperture further (i.e. increasing the f-stop number). You could safely bump the ISO up to 200 or 400 to compensate for the aperture reduction (or use artificial lighting).
Kaldari (
talk) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose - DOF a problem --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Kaldari. A tripod would work too. I'm also not sure that the id is as specific as it could be.
http://www.mushroomobserver.org might help in that regard.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 10:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator --
Eli+ 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. An attractive photograph, but the depth of field is extremely shallow. I would suggest stopping down the aperture further (i.e. increasing the f-stop number). You could safely bump the ISO up to 200 or 400 to compensate for the aperture reduction (or use artificial lighting).
Kaldari (
talk) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose - DOF a problem --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Kaldari. A tripod would work too. I'm also not sure that the id is as specific as it could be.
http://www.mushroomobserver.org might help in that regard.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 10:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)reply