Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A rolling stone gathers no moss.jpg

File:A rolling stone gathers no moss.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2015 at 03:30:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:A rolling stone gathers no moss.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A rolling stone gathers no moss.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Looks oversharpened to me, most remarkable on the unsharp areas at the edges. I would also expect better sharpness at the edges - wasn't it a flat structure? --Tuxyso (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment @ Tuxyso You are correct on the sharpening and the soft edges. On the sharpening... I oversharpened intentionally because I am treating this as an abstract interpretation of color and texture, while trying to minimize some of the softness. On the soft edges... I decided to go with them after I saw them in the computer, it really ticked me off becuase that lens is not supposed to do that, it is an L series Canon lens, and while taking pictures I intentionally used f8 for its supposed sweet spot and to avoid this potential problem. I get now that this lens is no good in macro mode. Nonetheless, the softness works for me, perhaps not for others, as an abstraction. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I think a more useful description would be important to be able to judge the image. I expected it to be an underwater photo from the image quality, but nothing else suggests that it is. — Julian H.^✈ 07:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment @ Julian, You are correct, is is not an underwater shot... and will update desription. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment These are lichens, not moss. I've changed the categorization accordingly, suggest to change the description as well (maybe something like "various species of lychen covering a rock"?). --El Grafo (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment @ El Grafo Thank you for your pointing out the correct classification and for updating the category. One learns soomething new everyday!!! And I will update the description... I don´t know if I can change the file name, but I think it still conveys an idea. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Even if not scientific neither precise nor descriptive enough, I think the current tomascastelazian file name makes sense, even in french. Please  Keep it... My two centesimos.--Jebulon (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment Merci Caballero. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't know, but what is a title for? Certainly having a smart idiom as title will not help anybody searching images of the subject. Working your way through the cats is quite weird for non-commoners, so I see little value in such a title, at least here (opposed to flickr etc., where you have tags). --DXR (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Could be interesting if executed well, but unfortunately both the sharpness and the post-processing are really not convincing to me. --DXR (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Looks really interesting! --Tremonist (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose too blured at all sides -- Christian Ferrer 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't expect a stone as perfectly flat. So I can live with many unsharp parts. And f/8 seems the sharpest aperture of the lens. I'll support if a less or little processed picture is uploaded. Jee 03:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)