Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Musa x paradisiaca flower

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Musa x paradisiaca flower[edit]

Original - The flowers of the plantain grow at the end of the shoot of the plant in a large bunch consisting of multiple hands with individual fingers. Only the first few hands will become fruits, with the rest falling down. The flowers are used as food by people of many cultures.
Alternative
Reason
Good quality image with encyclopedic value. The image was reviewed at PPR with favourable reviews.
Articles this image appears in
Plantain
Creator
Muhammad
  • Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 07:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination, with props for focus and depth of field. DurovaCharge! 11:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I used to have a large banana tree and I would see one of these pop up very very often. Personally, the flash ruined the picture. I would like a picture that's more evenly lit. I victorrocha (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More evenly lit? Seriously? There's hardly any visible highlights, how can you claim the lighting is uneven?pschemp | talk 04:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean the lighting in the picture overall from the subject and the background. The background is just too dark for a common static object. victorrocha (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.210.251 (talk) [reply]
  • Support - Agree with Durova. pschemp | talk 04:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Nice enough image but there is very high level of posterization/artefacts in the greens on the bottom of the image --Fir0002 12:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this fixable? It seems like the sort of thing a quick edit could correct. NauticaShades 22:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose It's nitpicky but I don't care for the fill flash that looks cooler than the background, it looks slightly superimposed on the background. Mfield (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I liked this at PPR as well; may have to look again at the issue Fir raises, but I don't think it's too serious. And personally I like the slight separation of the flower from the darker background that some others complain about. --jjron (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I don't like the flash. I'd much rather have a discussion on whether the background is overexposed than whether the subject is overflashed. Another idea would have been to present two variants of this picture, one being without flash. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking time to review this image. I don't see how the background is overexposed. Versions of the image without flash looked boring, unappealing and did not have enough details, and the position of the plant was such that direct light never hit the small flowers. Muhammad(talk) 18:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm saying I'd rather have a flaw in the background than on the main subject. If you hadn't used flash and exposed the main subject correctly, you presumably would have had to overexpose the background. I'm saying that overexposing the background might have been the better option given the circumstances. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Musa_x_paradisiaca_flower&oldid=1079089514"