Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Walnut

Walnut

A Juglans regia walnut, grown in California.

This is the new version, taking into consideration the comments of the voters. (Edit 1)

Is this fine? (Edit 2)

Edit 3, edit of verstion 2 by Fir0002

Reason

A hi-res image, shows the details of a walnut clearly, and seems to meet the criteria. Alternate option: Image:English Walnut (version2).jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Juglans regia, Walnut

Creator

AndonicO: It's my first self-nom.

Nominator

AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here}

• Self-Nominate and Support | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment By the way, should it be cropped a bit more? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah. --froth^{T C} 22:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Is it better now? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support sweet and very nice I like it much better cropped. — Arjun 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. —sd31415 (sign here) 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support, illustrive and a high-resolution picture, but a rather uninteresting composition. Perhaps an adjustment of levels and cropping in photoshop would make it more visually appealing? Jellocube27 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The lighting is a little strong, and it's a little blurry in places. I don't know if I like the unnatural surface the walnut is resting on. It's a nice picture, but not featured material in my opinion. --Tewy 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking for flaws...looking for flaws...ah! It's just a little bit blurry at full resolution! ;-). Support (edit 2), very nice. --Tewy 05:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The lighting is a little strong. Good crop. What's that black surface. --froth^{T C} 02:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Everything is great except that the background should probably be different. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the second edit better now.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. OK shot, but no "wow", and a slightly distracting background. I'd also like to see a cracked nut (or the innards), that would improve the enc. --Janke | Talk 05:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Moderate Support; it's quite a good shot, and there is nothing I can find fault with as far as the focus on the walnut, picture resolution and image quality are concerned. My only problem lies with the surface on which the walnut is placed on. At times, it can be a bit distracting. However, I think it is a good shot on the overall. -- Altiris Exeunt 05:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • After seeing the new pictures, my vote has been changed to Support Edit 1. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The background is a black rubber mat. I can take it again on a different surface with a cracked nut next to it if you'd prefer it that way. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I thought you placed one on a road and took it lying down. I was wondering why the surface was so rough. No offence there, though. Just thought I should mention it for your information. -- Altiris Exeunt 11:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I'm opposing not because the picture is bad (it is a great picture), but because it could and should be better. I don't like the colour of that rubber surface. Also, it would be better if an open walnut were put close to this one so we can see the inside. Alvesgaspar 13:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, I'll take a better one following your suggestions and upload it later today. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, I've uploaded this new version with a cracked nut next to the whole one. Is the background better? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The composition is much better in the second version. However, there are a few things that I think could still be improved. First, a large portion of the full walnut is out of focus (more so than the original). Try for a more narrow aperture if you can, to increase the depth of field. Next, the lighting is still a little harsh for my taste (light subject, dark shadows). Finally, it's minor, but I would like to see them spaced a little more apart. I think if you can address those issues, you'll have my support. --Tewy 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Totally echoing Tewy above. One more try, and you've got my vote. Not for any "wow", but for the enc. --Janke | Talk 19:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you tell me what you used for lighting? My guess is a direct flash as the lights are quite hard on the walnuts. If you can (limited by flash strength), can you try maybe a bounced flash? Of course, this is not as important than the limitd DOF and I would still support this nevertheless. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 22:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I just got back; I'll start taking pictures right away, sorry for the delay. And yes, I did just use flash. I'll be back in a while. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The bad lighting is causing grain right now (I think it's the lighting); I'll try again in the morning. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I like the new one much more, the background is great. However, the subjects are a bit too close together for my liking, and they are a bit out of focus as well. Otherwise, a great shot! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jellocube27 (talk • contribs).
• Comment Please retake the second one, it's excellent enc and composition, it's just out of focus. --froth^{T C} 03:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, here's the second picture with improved focus; sorry it took a while. I have two other almost identical ones too (they are slightly brighter), in case you find fault with this one. Can I please eat the nuts now? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support, attractive composition and of good encyclopedic value. Don't eat them just yet, though, someone else may have a gripe :) Jellocube27 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support for ALL PICTURES They are all good pictures of technical brilliance (my compliments to Andonic!) and encyclopedic excellence. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hear! Hear! -- Altiris Exeunt 08:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 2 - Bluedog423^Talk 22:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support Edit 1 or 3. Not much of a fan of the lighting, but good enc value --Fir0002 02:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose all. DOF is unnecessarily low. --Dschwen 11:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Aha, edit2 is actually in focus pretty much everywhere. All those versions and edits make it fairly confusing. So I'll go neutral on that one. I'd prefer to see the whole nut from an angle where the seam between the two halves of the shell is visible. Also, whats the red paint on the cracked nut? --Dschwen 15:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The red paint is where the brand name was painted (Diamond). I couldn't avoid getting it (the nut was broken on the other side, so I had to take the picture from that angle), and cracking even more nuts would have led to an economic disaster. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support all except original version I like all the versions with brown background. Good job AndranicO. --Arad 04:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit 1. I can't see what Fir did to edit this image. I like how the nuts touch in that composition. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Fir seems to have brightened it. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support edit by Fir. But only if the red paint at the bottom of the cracked nut will be removed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Suppert edit 2. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:English Walnuts.jpg Raven4x4x 06:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)