Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sweetgum Seed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sweetgum Seed Capsule[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 13:50:01 (UTC)

Original - Closeup on a sweetgum seed capsule after seed dispersal.
Reason
High Quality image, shows the texture of a sweet gum seed very well. In most pictures the inside of the holes would not be shown. Background also draws the eye toward the seed itself. May need a slight crop.
Articles in which this image appears
Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweetgum
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Plants/Others
Creator
Nanoman657
  • Support as nominator --Nanoman657 (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose distracting and patchy background. --99of9 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not FP quality, sorry. — raekyt 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Decent enc., but quality is an issue. SpencerT♦C 02:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw it coming on the graininess facet. There's little to nothing I can do about that, it's actually the best the camera can give. Here's a sample picture from the fujifilm official website taken with the same kind of camera as mine. It suffers from the same graininess.--Nanoman657 (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is the kinda busy background. Perhaps a different angle on the sweetgum seed would have provided a less-distracting background. SpencerT♦C 03:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Background is extremely distracting, and there are issues with quality. mc10 (t/c) 22:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry another Oppose I've got nothing against the graininess, it's no worse than many other pics that have passed, I just think the background is really awful. It's such a pity as it would be so easy to take exactly the same photo with a cleaner, more sensibly composed background. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]