Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cirsium arvense with Bees Richard Bartz.jpg

Creeping Thistle with bees edit

Original

Highlighted problem areas

Reason: I think this a good quality photograph of a rather unique shot.
Proposed caption: A Cirsium arvense, or Creeping Thistle with two bees. Although this plant is considered as a weed, it provides food for the Goldfinch and Linnet, as well as over 20 species of Lepidoptera, including the Painted Lady butterfly, and the Engrailed, a species of moth, and several species of aphids.
Articles this image appears in: Cirsium arvense
Creator: Richard Bartz

Support as nominator NauticaShad e s 19:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support With macros, it's not hard to get something sharp; it's hard to get the right thing sharp--and I think the DOF is perfect. I also like how the two buds show the flower in different developmental stages.--Here T oHelp 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I like this picture a lot. The colors compliment eachother nicely, and I agree with HereToHelp's comment on the differing plant stages. *Cremepuff 222* 01:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There's a few things I don't like here. I may be reading too much into this, but it almost looks like this has been cut out from a different background - if you look at the image I uploaded with the highlighted areas; 1. shows odd looking tips off the flower which seem to be resulting from a soft eraser brush; 3. it is a bit odd that despite the hairy texture of the stem it is completely clean along the edges. 2. is not related to my idea that it is cut out, but it certainly is an odd blurry area given the sharpness of the rest of the stem - what's going on? Finally if you look at the unopened flower head it suffers from motion blur and the overall image has a weird pastel colouration. Given the histogram I'm pretty sure it's not a natural colour, but I could be wrong. At any rate I've uploaded an edit for those who disagree with my other issues. --Fir0002 02:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you look here, however, the stems also look smooth. Maybe there are different varieties. NauticaShad e s 15:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support original and edit 1 I think you are seeing ghosts, dear Fir0002. There are probable explanations for all of the items you mention. 1. is a result of background softening, 2. is the front most protruding scale from the perianth, 3. the stem is felty rather than hairy. Lycaon 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My first thought was 'I like this'. My second thought was 'The background looks fake'. And that was before reading Fir0002's comments, and it's for different reasons. I can't describe it very well, but the depth of field used to capture the flower as it is just doesn't seem to gel with the detail in the sky - the blur on the rearmost petals is perhaps greater than the blur on the clouds. And would those camera settings capture that sky, e.g., a picture taken in what looks like the open in almost the middle of the day at ISO 800 and 1/200s...hmmm, and the sky is that blue? It just doesn't seem right to me, but I hope I can be proven wrong. --jjron 12:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. OK, the more I've thought about this the more I can't see how it's not fake. And given that the image creator (Richard Bartz) has now voted below (Central Powers) and made no comment on this, I'm assuming our suspicions were correct. This level of manipulation clearly defies Criterion 9. --jjron 08:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lycaon said it all so why this needs further discussions ? I like this picture a lot--Central Powers 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps you can give a definitive answer as to whether the background of this image was tampered with? --Fir0002 11:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a effect of dof (which you can see all around, a interesting effect indeed) and/or the bees moved this part of the bud--Central Powers 11:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part are you referring to - the background or highlighted area #2. If it is the latter I am quite sceptical of that claim (the blurriness is a result of the dof) - its far to sudden from the rest of the flower head, and some of the pink petals up top which look to have a greater displacement "inwards" are in focus. This does not address the more serious concern of background manipulation and quality issues relating to blurred petals. I've updated my higlighted edit with a few more problem areas I picked up looking at it again just now with a few "zoom ins" showing odd looking sections. One features a petal which seemingly comes out of the blue, the other a petal which becomes dramatically blurred (although this possibly might be a petal in front of it?). Not sure what you mean by "and/or the bees moved this part of the bud" unless you are trying to explain the motion blur? --Fir0002 12:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly it is turning contraproductive. You take more time and effort in investigations onto this picture as i needed to take it, identifiy and upload it :) I dont know where this phenomenies are coming from, i can only presume that it could caused by motionblur. This picture has more to offer than tiny phenomenas. You can see a detailed pollination, detailed stems, different states of development on the buds, everything nicely wrapped and packed under a authentic bavarian blue sky, thats all. It is just a nice informative picture which i spent to the general public for free, so why you trying to enforce me to justify myself? What exactly you want from me? --Central Powers 13:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All smoothing aside, for the background exposure you'll have to explain how a blue sky is blue in this picture. At 1/200s, ISO800 and F14 the sky should be 2 1/3 stops overexposed. (Sunny16: 1/200s, ISO800 -> F32). It seems very much like the sky was added later on. Wwcsig 13:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, but you are wrong. enWP will be memorized as uncongenial for me, are you happy now? --Central Powers 14:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very possible that my math is wrong but please tell me what's wrong with it. Cause if its right the sky should be completely white rather than cloudy blue...Wwcsig 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is the answer to the burning question, "Is the background fake?" A statement by the creator, please? thegreen J Are you green? 01:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support original and edit 1 Beggars can't be choosers --Central Powers 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has only 6 edits - four of which are on FPC the other two on his userpage --Fir0002 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How i can withdraw this stupid nomination? --Central Powers 14:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Compositionally it is quite a good shot but I am also not convinced about the legitimacy of the photo itself, as I agree with wwcsig, Fir0002 and Jjron. The edge of the thistle is quite clearly blurred where it meets the sky. This doesn't automatically mean gross manipulation (could be poor technique on noise reduction, etc), but the author's justification has not been particularly reassuring as little attempt has been made to debate the concerns others have. Sure, he has no obligation to, but we also have no obligation to make it a featured picture either. I think that when there is serious doubt about the validity of the image, aesthetics are very much of secondary importance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that main reason for the author's lack of explanation is merely the language barrier, but I could be wrong. NauticaShad e s 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But wouldn't it be easier to simply say "I guarantee you the background's not fake" than to avoid Fir0002's direct question on this and go on about DoF and motion blurs on the thistles? His English seems pretty good to me - certainly good enough to understand that we are concerned about the sky having been added from a different picture. It's like a politician avoiding a journalist's question they don't want to answer by going off on a different tack. Alvesgaspar invokes Occam's Razor, but I think we rather need to invoke the duck test here. --jjron 09:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got the impression it was more due to his indignanation than a language barrier... As Jjron said, his english seems pretty good. It just seems like certain people come here with an attitude problem and see themselves as above critical reasoning. I don't think theres anything wrong with a bit of balanced cynicism. After all, FPC isn't about personal critiques - it is just about selecting the best encyclopaedic images that Wiki has to offer. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of you are really seeing ghosts and I think I'll have to recall "Occam's razor" again. It would be so damm difficult to manipulate the picture the way it is suggested that I just can't believe the author did it. For example, how do we separate an out of focus element from the background when the limit is not well defined and the colours merge perfectly? By hand?- Alvesgaspar 18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but wwcsig raises a very valid point. I haven't confirmed what a typical blue sky would actually look like when using the settings (1/200s, ISO800 and F14), but his maths seems right to me. It should be grossly overexposed according to the Sunny 16 rule. Given that extracted EXIF data, surely Occam's Razor would suggest the most logical explanation IS manipulation of the image rather than an extraordinarily dark blue sky on this particular day. Ahh.. One thing did just occur to me though. What about if the author used a ND/polarizing filter? Just a thought anyway. :-) All he needed to do was explain this, if it was the case anyway, as wwcsig did invite an explanation. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ack, Alves. I think somebodies' imaginations are running wild here. I see absolutely nothing in the highlighted areas which cannot easily be explained with DOF effects. Changing the sky while keeping a natural look on the OOF contours would be an insane amount of work. And if the sky really were grossly overexposed we'd have light bleeding into the flower and insect contours. There would be no way short of repainting the image to replace it with a new sky. The more I think about it the more ridiculous I find this allegation. Please keep in mind that Richard is not a native english speaker, so he might have misread or simply overlooked this discussion. Taking his lack of response as an argument against him is quite frankly a bad faith assumption. --Dschwen 11:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, and what amazes me even more: no one apparently bothered to leave him a note on his talk page. Come on, this would be step number 'one if you really were interested in a response from him. --Dschwen 11:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record he was notified and it's not as if he didn't know about it (as per his comments) --Fir0002 12:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry Dschwen, but having read your comments here a couple of times I can only assume that you missed the point that Central Powers is Richard Bartz (no, I don't know why he's got two usernames - well three including his old Makro Freak, but who's counting?). He therefore had been clearly asked about this, and had posted several replies which avoided the issue. I assume your statement about "a bad faith assumption" probably refers to myself, Diliff, and Fir0002 - so given that he had replied and his answers were not exactly satisfactory, I don't think it's a fair call to say we acted in bad faith. --jjron 08:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I second that, Jjron. I don't feel like any of us acted in bad faith. We had an inkling that there may be deceptive manipulation involved and debated it with the author. I don't think any of us were rude - merely to the point. And as you said, his english is not that poor that he was unable to rebuke our points. As he states directly below me here, he just didn't feel like he had to, which is fair enough, but it didn't really alleviate our concerns. Anyway, Dschwen has been quite critical of potentially deceptive manipulation in the past. Just because he doesn't agree with us this time, it doesn't make it bad faith! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah I agree with Diliff - I think the questions we raised were perfectly in keeping with this process and I find it a little unusual Dschwen that coming from someone who in the past has stridently argued against cloning or any manipulation your position here is a bit odd --Fir0002 08:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh geez, give me a fracking break. What the hell is unusual about that?! I'm still very critical about image manipulation. Have I argued in favour of manipulation anywhere? Please point it out to me! The essence of my position was the inquisitory behaviour based on paper thin pseudo evidence. If anyone's position here is unusual it is your's Fir. How comes you of all people is suddenly going on an anti-manipulation crusade? You shouldn't have to be afraid of the competition, so what possible explanation could be left here... I don't know. --Dschwen 09:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Take it easy Dschwen! I'm not against manipulation at all as I've made very clear. But I do require that if any manipulation has been done it has been done well - that is it looks like it had never been done. That was my initial complaint - that the image manipulation was poorly done. From there I've merely been trying to get Richard to confirm the manipulation (in which case my oppose stands since it has been poorly done) or explain the issues I'm haing with it. Furthermore manipulation should be done to improve the image - and IMO the sky looks quite unnatural and detracts from the image. I mean I didn't initially at thumbnail size see the errors, but what looked like a fake sky to me prompted me to investigate the image closely and I came up with the problems. And no I'm not afraid of competition as you put it - why would I have supported the grasshopper thing nominated just before if I was? I think quite a few of Richard's photos are worthy of FP but this one isn't one of them --Fir0002 12:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, fair enough. Sorry I got so agitated about this whole thing. --Dschwen 14:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This picture must be good, otherwise it wouldnt cause a stir, like we have here. Dschwen and Alvesgaspar phrased it exactly, it would be a insane undertaking to replace this accused white background through a blue sky, furthermore iam the world most laziest person, even use jpg instead of raw because of the timewasting procedure of converting. I admit that sometimes I erase dirt, doing color adjustments and sharpen slightly, thats all, no merlins hat. My aloofness is a reaction on this absurd reproaches, and i dont want to play this "hearing" game with you, because i have more positive things to do. My last comment: This background which is the most unimportant part on this picture isnt fake! Regards, Richard Bartz--Central Powers 12:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was reading all the dogged comments and presumptions. I know that Wikipedians are keen to debate, thats why iam most of the times at Commons where its more quiet and gracious. What makes me really disapointing here on the english Wikipedia are the questions on this picture. I assumed there will questions about the pollination, maybe about the missing id of the bees etc., something more scientific, something what is interesting for me to discuss, but what we have here is a really poor, nerdish photographers talk, which is exclusive based on assumption and everybody takes joyful part on it. Iam not the nominator and i dont asked for FP. I dont want something from you, and i learned that if you want something, you have to be very friendly. Because of your contrary behaviour e.g. you insistence on assumptions in a bad tempered pathetic chorus i cannot easily deliver the answers you want. Its not important for me to fight for stupid FP buttons, more important is my job, my kids and the abandonment for macro photography. I assume most of the users here are in the same age from the same generation, with the same profound love for photography, and before i came here i thought there must be smart, international, dynamic and easy people here around. What I find here destroys my perception of the enWP. Enough said, i take my dog and my cam and leave this stupid computer and if you like you can discuss this until you getting gray, but without me. Have a nice day, Richard --Central Powers 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why can't you "easily deliver the answers you want"? They're not that complicated, we just want you to explain a few things about your photo. I mean even ignoring the obvious Sunny 16 issue there's also the focus issue. No doubt there's a formula to work these things out, but personally (and I obviously hadn't shot with your 65mm so can't say for sure) I'd have thought that the sky would be almost completely OOF given the focus drop off of the petals. And again I'm not sure what the bokeh looks like on your lens, but the sky doesn't look like a natural OOF, to me anyway, more like a gaussian blur has been applied. Add to that the issues I've raised in my highlighted edit and really I don't feel comfortable with this becoming an FP. So if you could please describe any modifications which have made to this image we'd all be very thankful! --Fir0002 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need to leave, Richard. This place belongs to eveybody, including you and all the "amateur" photographers of Commons. There is only one way to ban the pedantism of the English Wikipedia's FPC, which is to stay and fight it with common sense and the excellency of your contributions. - Alvesgaspar 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You mean this is for Pro's only? --Central Powers 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Richard - since you have all this time complaining about our questions, why don't you just answer a few of them? Shouldn't a peer review of an FP photo include reasonable questions about possible manipulations, especially since the FP criteria do require no significant alterations ? If you can explain how you got a blue sky when it is mathematically 2-1/3 stops overexposed this issue would be resolved for me. And if there's a language barrier, reply in German or email me and I'll translate your answer for you. Wwcsig 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I don't care if the background's real or not. The foreground subject is well photographed and the background is not detracting from that. That's all that matters to me. Centy – reply• contribs – 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Richard convinced me that the exposure is correct, the EXIF time is obviously off by a few days and hours: The sunny16 rules does not apply for an evening sky which makes my objection based on the non-overblown sky moot. Beautiful image! Give us more - and be ready to be grilled again ;-)... Wwcsig 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be ready, but prepare for a hard nut to crack! :) :) :) --Central Powers 19:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- But then why are the shadows appearing to show that the sun is reasonably high in the sky? ;-) Anyway, just putting that question out there.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just ask Wwcsig what convinced you to change your vote? --Fir0002 09:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The background really bothers me. If you look closely you can see gradient banding on the "clouds"...just doesn't look natural to me. CillaИ ♦ XC 22:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - per my comments above - Alvesgaspar 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with Alvesgaspar that this discussion is purely pedantic and has nothing to do with the real merits of the photo. The discussion should be about the merits of a photograph, but it seems more about posturing among regular contributors over who can come up with the most erudite and arcane objection to the photo. FPs are still about excellent photos, and these discussions of technical minutiae do nothing for the community. I have rarely commented on FPs because of the "OMG is that a blown highlight!" mentality that prevails. I'm saddened to see that some individuals who have been unfairly subjected to this sort of treatment are now the ones perpetrating it themselves. - noraad 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd call myself a regular contributor. This is not an elite cabal. Comment more often, and participate in constructive discussions. --Dschwen 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be overly negative, but that's really why I don't comment more often - I rarely find a discussion that is constructive. Most follow the same route with the same people discussing the same issues ad infinitum. Certain individuals comment on their topic du jour, then others line themselves up around those opinions and proceed to argue, or if most impressions are favorable, give a "chorus" of supports. I know there are examples that do not follow this pattern, but by and large this is the case. In a broader sense, I object to a pattern of catering to the contrarian voice. Just because I have an opinion and have a right to express it does not mean I should express it. I have a responsibility to judge how my comments will affect a discussion (and in a larger sense, a community) and then to select participation or non-participation based on those effects. To the self-serving or narrow-minded individual, the thought process stops at the "I have a right to" phase, and yields comments that are, in the least, non-constructive. --noraad 16:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. See my comments above, plus it is a striking macro and technically well done. --Dschwen 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Cirsium arvense with Bees Richard Bartz.jpg MER-C 03:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]