Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Jonquils02 aug 2007.jpg

Reason: I really like the lighting in this photo - and FWIW there are no blown highlights!
Articles this image appears in: Narcissus (genus)
Creator: Fir0002

Support Any as nominator --Fir0002 09:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Incomplete taxonomic information -> less EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Support Edit 1 My first impression was that it seemed a little bit lacking in contrast. Looking at the histogram you have a little bit of room to play. Attached is an edited thumbnail with +15 contrast and +5 saturation. I didn't bother with the full size version as you may have the original RAW to work with. I have now uploaded the full res version of edit one.
Support original and edit 2 I like the original, though I could see the folliage being a bit richer in colour. The edit to me has less contrast and saturation IMO. Doesn't look better than the original. Capital photographer (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original, Edit 1 and Edit 2/Oppose ~~Edit 1~~ Alt 1 A nice picture, well done/Resolution of ~~Edit 1~~ Alt 1 is much too little. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit wasn't intended as a full resolution version, more an example. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMO, edit 1 has the best color/contrast. Fir's edit 2 looks a bit pale on my monitor (yes, it's calibrated... ;-) Make a full-size version of edit 1, and you may consider it supported. --Janke | Talk 08:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original and Edit 1. To me, the contrast is not a huge problem, and edit 2 makes it slightly too bright. NauticaShad es 14:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit 2 is brighter, but it seems more life like and radiant while the other edits are a bit dull and digital IMO. Capital photographer (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF is troublesome. I'd like to see the rest of the plant in focus. It only adds to the article about as much as all the others in the gallery. I don't mind the lighting, but it doesn't stand out as being particularly good.Greener Cactus (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all: No exact identification. Lycaon (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]