Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Picea Pungens Young Cones.jpg

Picea Pungens Immature Cones

Reason: High quality, nice lighting
Articles this image appears in: Picea pungens, Conifer cone
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom --Fir0002 12:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The left side of the species are not sharp, the overall tone is a little dark and the composition is not attractive.--Caspian blue 14:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Yes, the composition is a little unfortunate, but it would be unacceptable to rotate the image to imply that the cones grow sideways from a branch going up, rather than growing up from a sideways branch. I'd support cutting a little bit of the far right background, though.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dust spots. Lycaon (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed one in the background, any others you can spot? Noodle snacks (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that was the one. Lycaon (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Caspian blue, and the picture is no longer used in the Picea pungens article. Lycaon (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it dropped off due to someone reverting a somewhat mouldy IP blanking rather than an editorial decision (looking at the history seems to support this). I've put it back for the time being, let's see if it sticks. MER-C 02:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picea Pungens Young Cones-emphasis background.jpg

Open up the image in full and look closely at the background, and to me, it personally doesn't look quite right. (Note: There may be some artifacting in the cropping process, so look at a similar area in the original as well).Spencer^T♦^C 15:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ ~~Neutral~~ Weak support I agree with Capsian blue. Also, I'm dissatisfied with the background, which looks ~~fake~~ odd when viewed somewhat closely at 100%. Spencer^T♦^C 03:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Faked background... How? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also anything is possible with Adobe photo shop:-Adam (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, fake is not the word I'm trying to use. Struck that and used odd. I've uploaded an image which shows some of my dissatisfaction with the background. Also, changing vote to neutral. Spencer^T♦^C 15:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that white thing you are refering to? I believe it and the other similar line on the RHS were lines of lines of silk (see Ballooning (spider)) catching the sunlight at some distance in the background, but as far as the rest of the green. I can't seem to spot anything else. I thought I added it already, but here is a raw screenshot. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Changing vote to weak support after clarification...sharpness issues prevent a full support.Spencer^T♦^C 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I did try a focus stack originally, but there was just enough of a breeze to make later alignment unsuccessful. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppopse I concur with Capsian blue. Also, I am scepticle with the background, which looks fake when viewed somewhat closely at 100%. Although it is a great image I think that anything is possible with Adobe photo shop :-Adam (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not over your tantrum evidently. I would like details on how the background is "faked" and I can provide a RAW to a trusted user as strong evidence to the contrary. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like for me to change my vote to support:-Adam (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that comment really make sense? Who wouldn't want a support if your pic was on FPC. However, if there was a clear misunderstanding, I would want that cleared up, just as Noodle snacks clarified my comment. Spencer^T♦^C 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that'd be nice :P Noodle snacks (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful picture faked background or not.--Jf268 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has ~7 edits, all related to FPC. Spencer^T♦^C 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good quality and background very pleasing. I am surprised it not yet promoted. Muhammad(talk) 04:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Picea Pungens Young Cones.jpg MER-C 05:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]