Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sweet Violet
- Reason
- Well illustrates the sweet violet flower and is helpful for identification. Because I am still quite a novice, I appreciate in depth comments so that I can improve.
- Articles this image appears in
- Sweet violet
- Creator
- Thegreenj 05:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support as nominator — Thegreenj 05:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose and comment. DOF is off and there is also strange fringing at the edge of the petals. My comment is that if you are looking for constructive criticism, use Picture Peer Review, not FPC. Pstuart84 Talk 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Picture Peer Review could be an icredibly powerful tool. However, in depth commenters seem to have been abandoned it in favor of just voting for featured. Fcb981 seems to be the only dedicated reviewer. This picture was taken under Fcb981's suggestion and was at peer review for several days without response. I like the photograph and wanted to see how it would fare here, picking up critisism on the way. Out of curiosity, is the "strange fringing" a lens artufact or something fixable? It seems to appear in many of my close-ups. Thegreenj 14:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's fair, though the File Links on the image page do not include Peer Review, hence my remarks. It's a shame that FPC appears to be a better peer review process than Peer Review itself. I leave it to someone better versed than me in photography to explain how to avoid the fringing. Pstuart84 Talk 15:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Check out the article at Purple fringing - your pic shows two or three types of fringing and at least one of them (the purple at the top) would seem to be an inherent property of the lens. The example at Chromatic aberration shows the same sort of thing. It's not unusual for a "Jack of all trades" lens to be less than perfect at everything and macro (along with landscape work) is probably the toughest task you could give it. Try stopping down the lens to around f11 (you'll need a tripod) and see if that helps, and perhaps pull back a little (it's worse towards the edges of the frame) and crop the image down later. These two things will probably help with the depth of field problem you have here too. mikaultalk 16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Picture Peer Review could be an icredibly powerful tool. However, in depth commenters seem to have been abandoned it in favor of just voting for featured. Fcb981 seems to be the only dedicated reviewer. This picture was taken under Fcb981's suggestion and was at peer review for several days without response. I like the photograph and wanted to see how it would fare here, picking up critisism on the way. Out of curiosity, is the "strange fringing" a lens artufact or something fixable? It seems to appear in many of my close-ups. Thegreenj 14:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose; I'd like to see some stem/something apart from the flowering part if this picture is in the article for the entire flower. Ishaana 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)