Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cherry

Reason: It just looks very natural and to me it meets 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8th of W:FPC.
Articles this image appears in: Cherry
Creator: Gulmammad

Support as nominator --Gülməmməd ^Talk 16:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low technical quality.--Svetovid (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question: I am curios to know the low technical quality corresponds to which subsection of #1 in W:FPC. For the technical quality the camera should be fine as can be seen from the metadata of the image. Thanks in advance! Gülməmməd ^Talk 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is quite noisy, unsharp and has depth of focus issues at full size. Oppose. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I quite like the composition of the picture it is framed perfectly and the colors are first rate. On technical ground the picture does have a lot of noise and areas are blown out(pure white). Next time you take a closeup picture you should mount the camera on a tripod and use the manual mode on you G9 to close the aperture and get a larger Depth of Field. Recently a nomination made it through here by showing the development cycle of fruits. If you can do that by having a good technical quality pictures it's very likely your picture would succeed. victorrocha (talk) 7:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - a picture of 3 cherries doesn't do it for me, on both technical and appealing grounds. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Adds nothing to the cherry article. Not a good picture. Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think the picture is very good, but there is quite a lot of noise, as others have remarked. If someone could improve the focus of the image then I would support it.--Polymath618 (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor exposure Capital photographer (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't look good visually or technically.116135 (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]