Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Photos-photos 1088103921 Floating.jpg

Floating Along edit

Floating Along

This is from the article Dandelion. I'm nominating this because as a picture of floating dandelion seeds, it perfectly demonstrates that part of the dandelion life cycle, while also being artisticly interesting. A picture like this had been requested, and I fufilled the request. I took this photograph. It was taken with an Olympus C-720UZ with a close-up lens on the end. The picture was taken at full zoom, (8x) which explains the shallow DOF. I did the best I could, but I was working with only about 1/3 of an inch of DOF. Besides, the blurred background gives it character. :D

Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 04:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I like this, although I'm sure there will be some who will complain about only one being in focus. Raven4x4x 05:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
You can't expect all three to be in focus. Looks fine, although I would've appreciated a more natural background. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Support. Magical. Enochlau 07:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Really interesting and original shot. Raven4x4x 08:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( + ) Support Nicely done --Fir0002 09:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Looks great -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I suppose I was wrong when I said that people would complain. Shows what I know. Raven4x4x 23:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TomStar81 00:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks nice (if a bit arty) at 800x600 plus, but the scaled down version used in the article (currently 180x135) looks terrible. For the purposes of illustrating dandelion seeds, I don't think it's doing its job. --zippedmartin 01:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the picture in the article can always be changed, you know. You might also want to check your monitor, because the size looks fine to me. ;-)PiccoloNamek 02:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is the fact that very fine white lines on a black background looks a bit pantsy at low resolutions that hard a concept to grasp? The foreground 'lion goes all jaggedy and horrible, emphasising the jpeg compression, and the background ones blur into themselves. Unless you're suggesting the image should be 800x600 in the article (...don't), the objection stands. Nice as a picture on its own, but thumbnail in article isn't that great. --zippedmartin 05:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is a hard concept to grasp when it doesn't look that way to me. Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. It must be you. Sure, some detail is lost, but it always is when resizing, and it just doesn't look as bad as you describe on my monitor. I can still make out all of the seeds just fine, and they look neither too blurry nor too jagged. Besides, judging the worth of an image solely on your perception of the thumbnail seems a little harsh. But everyone is entitled to their opinion. No hard feelings, ne?PiccoloNamek 05:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Full size looks great, and the thumb in the article is still plenty striking enough to make me look at the full size ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 21:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Superb. --Deglr6328 07:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Photos-photos_1088103921_Floating.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 10:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]