Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cymbidium05.jpg
Maybe this flower photo has a little more "wow" factor. It also contributes well to it's article. Personally I like the colors in the non cut out version. I have other versions: Image:Cymbidium04.jpg, Image:Cymbidium06.jpg, Image:Cymbidium07.jpg
- Support Self Nom --Fir0002 11:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Which version? - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'd support any of those versions --Fir0002 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose For now. Maybe you could get rid of the misty shading of the flower on the second image. It looks distractive to the eyes.--Ali K 13:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Neither is (are?) OK in my view. Each of the spread-out petals of version 1 is blurred. On version 2 the curious white glow around the petal edges is annoying - Adrian Pingstone 16:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'd support the second ver if the blurred edjes could be fixed. Eyesclosed 19:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Removed the outer glow effect --Fir0002 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support The second image. Eyesclosed 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose second, Neutral first - I feel like the masking in the second image doesn't look right. Debivort 05:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose both. First lacks DOF, cutout provides no additional value (actually lessens it, since we loose context). --Dschwen 10:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose both. The first has focus issues, while in the second I don't quite like the background. enochlau (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support second - I like the look of the second image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Not promoted BrokenSegue 02:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
