Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/RedMoss

Red moss stalks on moorland

Red moss stalks, a small but colourful winter native of the Yorkshire Dales moorland.

Larger version. However, now that I look at the larger copy, I remember that I accidentally saved this image as a compressed JPG, losing the original. Therefore, it DOES have quite a lot of artifacts, I do admit...

Reason: It is beautiful, and none of the other photos show a colourful moss.
Articles this image appears in: Moss
Creator: Vaelta

Support as nominator — Vaelta 12:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Attractive composition, but poor depth of field. Spikebrennan 18:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the opinion of most photographers, the "correct" depth of field is the one which captures the subject in focus while ensuring that other elements of the photograph do not overpower the subject. This photo would be a good example of that: the moss stalks (and pretty little water droplets) are in focus; the rest of the photo is not. Imagine a photograph of a bird sitting in a twiggy tree: if all the twigs were also in focus, the bird would be almost invisible (in most cases). But anyway, uploading a few of my photographs to Wikipedia's featured pictures is just a personal experiment, and so far, so cliquey... this is still a fabulous pic. It goes with all of my fabulosity fact about moss! :D--Vaelta 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your tree example is correct, but in this particular photograph, a bit more in focus subject would probably benefit the picture. Artistically, the effect is gorgeous, but I feel that a larger depth of field would illustrate the subject better. J Are you green? 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Oppose original, weak support full size ~~given conpyright info~~ (The large version is highly detailed, but it still is more artsy than encyclopaedic.) J Are you green? 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I am not a huge fan of the DOF. The photograph also seems almost unreal, as if it had been overprocessed. I also really do not see much detail in the subject. Although I am struggling to find a quantitative fault, I cannot find enough to convince me to support. The image resolution does not cut it for me either; upsampled to the tiny size of one megapixel it is undeniably soft. J Are you green? 20:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for at least justifying your DOF comments. As I said, this is mainly just an experiment on my part, as I am amazed at the number of artistically poor photographs (nature in particular) that get featured picture status. However, I do understand this is an encyclopaedia, and artistic value is not necessarily the most valued aspect here. To your other points, the image is actually unprocessed apart from a VERY small border crop. I simply don't do processing, and don't even HAVE a copy of the supposedly vital Photoshop... And as for size, my screen resolution is not much more than this image. Is it necessary to have it any larger? --Vaelta 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty hard to believe no editing has been done to that pic, if for no other reason than that the exif is stripped. --Fir0002 06:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The size is not necessary, but I certainly would appreciate the added detail, especially if you have an 8 MP version as with your other nomination. If your camera is digital, it seems to be doing you the favour of sharpening the picture a tad past my preferences. Personally, I enjoy the detail of a high resolution picure even if it does not fit on my screen. I might change my mind if you upload a higher resolution verison, though. As for our current FPs, if you feel that any truly do not meet quality guidelines there is a place for that. J Are you green? 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not that they do not meet any quality guidelines, just that I feel some are rather uninspired. Just personal opinion, nothing more. But anyway, I'll go and dig out a larger copy of this... just a mo'. --Vaelta 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote, but you should add the new picture's copyright information. J Are you green? 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, or next to no encyclopedic value without identification of the species.--Peta 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The DOF makes it impossible to see any detail on the gametophytes (the leafy part that is half of the moss's lifespan). Calliopejen1 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:RedMoss.jpg --The Sunshine Man 21:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]