Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lilium longiflorum (Easter Lily).JPG

Lilium longiflorum

Original - Lilium longiflorum

Reason

A little seasonal reference. This is an image of a lilium longiflorum, also known as an Easter lily. It's a crisp, high rez image of the trumpet-shaped white flower. I took many photos, but decided that this composition was best to show the petals, stamina, and the long trumpet shape.

Articles this image appears in

Lilium longiflorum, Lilium, Template:Liliales-stub

Creator

Yours truly

• Support as nominator --~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Technically, it's fine. It's sharp and the DOF is tolerable, but I find that 'looking down at' angle makes it seem a bit throwaway snapshotty. That might come across as photographer-snobbery, so I apologise if that's how it sounds, as it is isn't my intention! Getting down at the level of the subject generally helps the composition, though. Also, I think that while a straight-on angle might not show all the features as well as from the side, I this one is too side on which exacerbates the DOF limitations. This one is probably more of a VPC IMO. The bar has been set fairly high for flower macros. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak opposesupport per Dillif. Lighting lacks as well. ZooFari 20:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I saw these at Walmart today and it appears that it is normally tilted like that. I'd still like to see a brighter image for my full support. ZooFari 01:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It's clear, visually appealing, and you can tell it's a flower; that's all that matters to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Juliancolton--Yue ^{of the North} 21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The background is distracting, stand further away and zoom in more. It is underexposed. The lighting is fairly harsh and uneven, the shutter speed suggests sunlight. I'd shade the flower to get a more even light and consequently allow a brighter exposure since the specular highlights would be gone. I'd also suggest taking the photograph from a lower angle per Diliff. There is also some mild, treatable CA in places. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but how is the background distracting? You have to see the plant in its natural environment in order to retain the encyclopedic value. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Given that the background is out of focus anyway, it would look a lot better if it was far more blurred, drawing attention to the lily. Furthermore, the background is fairly obviously grass, and as such probably not representative of the flower's true natural environment on the Ryukyu Islands. Compare it to the background of File:Milk thistle flowerhead.jpg for example. Incidentally, if ωαdεstεr16 followed Diliff's suggestion, the background would also be far more blurred. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Still getting over the jet lag from my trip to Japan. ;) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support. Good photo, nice focus, but the blur on the top petal is really offputting. Good work though.  GARDEN  10:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral Blur on the top petal doesn't look good, the angle at which the shot was taken doesn't illustrate the image very well. tempodivalse [☎] 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry but compared with NS images this is just a snapshot. DOF, background and lighting are all below standards - which are very high for such easily repeatable subjects --Fir0002 12:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 11:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)