Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Iran Saffron threads

Iran saffron threads

Persian saffron threads from Iran.

While it may be a tad overexposed at the edges, I think this image still has high enc in that it shows the threads in high detail towards the center; appears in Saffron, and Rainer Zenz created the image

• Nominate and support. - Tewy 05:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question What are those white specks on the saffron? --Dgies 05:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am by no means an expert on saffron, but the article says that the threads are dried stigmas, so maybe the specks are just a result of the drying process. --Tewy 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Why 'modern-day' Iran rather than simply 'Iran'? Pstuart84 Talk 14:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, sorry, that caption was from the History of saffron article, so it was referring to the present-day. I've fixed it now. --Tewy 22:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, doesn't actually show that much detail of any one thread, each is only a few pixels wide. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, full size image shows enough detail of the saffron for me. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Subject is a little boring but I think that's about as good a photo of saffron as you could get. --Dgies 06:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think saffron is actually pretty amazing and it's very illustrative! Leon 11:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose <sarcasm>Blown Highlights!!</sarcasm> Seriously, why do people always to turn the background completely white but leaves some shadow behind but not the others? It's weird having a patch of grey in the middle but no shadow near the individual threads of the saffron at all. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 12:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I prefer a slight amount of shadow, it makes teh 3D structure more apparent. --Dschwen 12:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Since it's from IRAN! ;-) --Arad 22:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful. Just beautiful. This one should definitely make it to featured picture status. Ilikefood 20:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Yes, it is a good picture, but I don't think it has enough beauty or enc relevance to be FP. Alvesgaspar 00:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I guess it's a good encyclopedia picture but their isn't anything special about it that makes me like it. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 15:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support — I like it. Quite encyclopedic, since you can see more details in this image than in real life. I mean, saffron is really, really tiny!

Besides, I don't get some of the oppositions here. ¿Why1991 states that is it encyclopedic, but opposes it because there "isn't anything special about it". Come on, being encyclopedic far outweighs one person not finding a photo pleasing. Not to mention the usefulness of this image, as it can be easily placed into one's design projects due to the white background.

Alvesgaspar says that this image doesn't have enough "encyclopedic relevance". Now, don't get me wrong, but there IS a saffron article, right?

antilived, as Dschwen pointed out, some shadow brings a necessary three-dimensional element to a two-dimensional photograph. The reason why you see little shadows on certain spots is simply because of the lighting angle and that saffron is so small that it is practically lying flat on the surface.

On the other hand, we have people like Arad supporting because "IT'S FROM IRAN!" Sorry for this long support, but I'm getting tired of seeing these kinds of responses to nominations. ♠ SG →Talk 06:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that some of these reasons are questionable, and some probably should have explained their position better, but I think that Why1991 opposed because it lacked the "wow" factor some feel is necessary for FP, and I think Arad was kidding, and just didn't leave a real reason. --Tewy 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Iran saffron threads.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)