Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lily Lilium

Lilium 'Citronella

Original - A Lilium 'Citronella, a flower of the Lily family, is pictured, during a beautiful partly cloudy day.

Edit 1 An edit to remove the artifacts from the cloning attempt made in Edit A.

Edit A First edit to remove the distracting flower, from the commons nomination.

Reason: This is a clear, and nice image of a Lilium 'Citronella, part of the Lily family.
Articles this image appears in: Lily
Creator: Ram-Man

Support as nominator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 The distracting flower in the original was not good. The composition and perspective is what is cool. Let me rant on two subjects. First, over-saturation: As some famous photographer who's name I can't remember said: "Wild colors are the bastion of the uninspired and unskilled. Light is the most important aspect of photography. Light is what gives photographs life, feeling. Color just fools innocent people into thinking an image is good." Looking at Ken Rockwell's pictures makes me ill, the combination of ultra wide and grossly over-saturated color. This image is good in spite of the crazy colors, not because of them. The second, is crazy long signatures. Oreo, your sig is no less than three full lines on my edit page. Really, not to cramp your individuality but if people want to know something about your style, they'll visit your userpage. Anyway, you are definitely not the only one. This is all in good humor but, uh, maybe something to think about. ; ) -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of second flower. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. And FCB, your sig seems to have trailing spaces. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (edit 1) - I like them just about the same, but I find the extra flower slightly distracting. jj137 (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (edit 1) the edit was actually a re-edit -- a 'don't edit this but if you are going to edit it, at least do it well'. -- carol 09:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Original Not bad - but the framing is a bit clumsy. Oppose Edit 1 - poor cut out job (check out the ends of the stamen - looks like it was done using fluidmask?). --Fir0002 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I never heard of that software. The edit history is mostly here. I did not like the artifacts left in the sky in edit A and I think I mostly replaced the whole sky. Any problems you see around the flower -- probably GIMP did via masks. And, it would not have been GIMP (which is a collection of algorithms that have gui attached to it -- frequently referred to as software), it would have been the user of the software at that time who screwed up what was already an unnecessary and destructive edit of a perfectly good photograph. Sky gradient that was used. -- carol 12:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Durova^Charge! 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has the leaf at the top also been worked? The discoloration could be a cloud, but it really looks like someone has painted some blue across the edge of the leaf, perhaps to remove some other distracting element. Matt Deres (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like magic, where the magician (and the assistant) say 'look here' while just out of range of your attention, something else is going on or perhaps you need to get your monitor calibrated. -- carol 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs) [reply]

Weak Oppose its just not quite there. Close, though. Rudy Breteler (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Lily Lilium 'Citronella' Flower 2578px.jpg MER-C 06:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]