Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Leucanthemum vulgare 'Filigran' Flower 2200px edit1.jpg

Leucanthemum vulgare edit

Current FP. Oxeye daisy

(1 and 2) Masking artifacts, (3) Over-sharpened, (4) Noisy background

Replacement

Original (non-FP)

Reason: The current featured image has several technical problems, as illustrated at right. The replacement image is of similar resolution, includes the stem and leaf for additional EV, and doesn't have a distracting background.
Previous nomination/s: Can't find the original nomination. Please add if you can find it.
Original nom. --jjron (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Kaldari (talk)

Delist and replace (2nd choice: Delist and replace with original) — Kaldari (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for ~~delist and replace~~. While the new image is better than the original in technical quality I prefer the background of the original - more natural, flowers don't often have burgundy backdrops. On balance I think the new image should replace the old. |→ Spaully ^τ 16:22, 22 June 2009 (GMT)
- Now the original has turned up it satisfies both points - having a more natural background and without the problems of its' edit. Weak support for Replace with original, though it is somewhat soft in parts, presumably why someone tried to sharpen it. I agree a natural background is not absolutely necessary, but definitely preferred. |→ Spaully ^τ 07:54, 25 June 2009 (GMT)
- I changed the background to black (which I admit is only slightly better than burgundy). For cultivated flowers, I don't think a natural background is always necessary, but generally I prefer them as well. Kaldari (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - An image with such technical problems should be removed from FP, and about the replacement, I´m not sure if I want to vote for replace it into FP, but it´s very good anyway. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{__Ξ_} . -- 06:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have located the original nom, but I don't think you've notified the creator of this delist nom as per requirements. --jjron (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that and reminding me to notify the creator. I didn't even remember that I was the person that nominated the original one! Kaldari (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with Original What is wrong using my original source image? (It is a FP on Commons and 2 other Wikipedias) The current FP is a modified version. The original does not suffer from the various masking problems and oversharpening, it has a more natural background, and has higher spatial resolution than the proposed replacement. I like mine because it actually shows the detail in the white petals, something that is not as evident in the alternate version (because of the slight overexposure). With problems #1, #2, and #3 eliminated, I don't see how the background noise (#4) matters relative to the flower itself, but that's just my opinion. -- RM 23:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Original per RM. Lighting swings it for me, sharpness is fine as it is, plus I think the setting is just plain nicer than black. FWIW I don't see overexposure on the other, just harsher lighting. --mikaul^talk 12:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The whites and bright yellows are clustered at the high end of the histogram. They're not clipping, but you don't have quite as much detail (thus "slight"). -- RM 23:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - From what I remember, the reason I pushed the curves petals on the FP edit was to make the flower look more like it would to the eye. On the original the petals appear somewhat grey, maybe due to the metering being fooled by the white petals but pure white petals should look white in an image. I didn't bring down the white point so there shouldn't be any more clipping than was present in the original, all i did was push the curve slightly. I am certainly embarassed about the masking mess, which I would have fixed if it had been noticed in the original nom. Mfield (Oi!) 16:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and don't replace all the versions and proposed replacements are below the bar for flower FPs now, certainly for such a common species and with focus stacking being more routine. A new nom should be sharper all over than all of them, have an appropriate background, and be better exposed than the original. Mfield (Oi!) 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be your opinion and even be common practice, but it is not what the rules state. It is among "best examples of a given subject'" and is of "high technical standard". There may be many images of different species that are far superior, but requiring focus stacking on this one is not appropriate. If another one comes along that is superior, then by all means delist. -- RM 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. This expectation that macro images can't be promoted unless they're focus stacked is unreasonable. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well naturally it is my opinion, this is a discussion after all. I never said that there is an expectation that macro images should be focus stacked, I certainly never said it was required, I meant that with focus stacking being more common and relatively easier now, expectations have been raised somewhat to what is possible. There is a valid expectation that images should have adequate DOF to fully cover the important parts of the subject, and the petals of a flower should be sharp if they can be fitted within DOF. If parts of the petals are out of focus then the image could have been shot at a smaller aperture, had the original been shot at f11 or higher instead of f8 then the petals could have been sharper as they are in the proposed replacement image, which unfortunately has a less appealing background. The rules are a guideline, we do have an established expectation that images of exceptionally common subjects should be held to a technically higher standard than trickier or rarer subjects. Mfield (Oi!) 16:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Struck delist without replacement: Thought Kaldari had voted twice due to indentation -- Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]

This is wrong. 4 supports to Replace with Original, 2 straight delists. How is this a delist rather than a replace with original? --jjron (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~You're counting Kaldari twice - two statements, one person. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - No,w ait, you're right. That indentation fooled me three times, curse it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Leucanthemum vulgare 'Filigran' Flower 2200px.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]