Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Japanese Larch Larix kaempferi Cone 2000px.jpg

Image:Japanese Larch Larix kaempferi Cone 2000px.jpg, featured

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Cone of the Japanese Larch (Larix kaempferi)
•  Support ---- Ram-Man 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I love it! :) --Leafnode 06:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice colors. --Atoma 08:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support very good! --Winiar^✉ 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - pic is up-side-down - MPF 22:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Chuckle! That's hilarious. The picture isn't upside down, I took the picture just a few weeks ago. It was taken on a tripod. Its not even physically possible for the tripod to tilt the camera upside-down. -- Ram-Man 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK then, the cone is held up-side-down . . . comes to the same thing! - MPF 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

well I suppose so. This cone was no longer physically attached (in a lifegiving sort of way) to the parent anyway. I suppose you could flip it upside-down if you wanted to. -- Ram-Man 20:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Romary 06:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support very good! --Diligent 13:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Great image. --Yarnalgo 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice ! Benh 22:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support nice composition and detail. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - I didn't quite understand the explanation: was the cone deliberately inverted or is it the result of some branch that colapsed? In my opinion the fact that the cone is not in its natural position takes away much value from the picture. Images in Commons are supposed not (only) to be beautiful but to be useful as encyclopedic illustrations. By the way, I like this picture a lot. Alvesgaspar 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neither? Both? I did deliberately pose this picture, but I was not trying to be deceptive. The cone was attached to the piece of twig that wasn't attached to the tree. I posed it to make the picture easier to take: I wanted the parent tree as the background. I've rotated this picture 90 and 180 degrees, and in either case the cone isn't pointing straight up and I don't know what the natural configuration might look like, not being an expert. It wouldn't be hard to rotate it though. My intention was to be descriptive of the cone itself through the detail provided by a macro shot. Since it was no longer part of the tree, I didn't pay it's orientation any consideration. Maybe MPF can tell me how many degrees to rotate the source image and I can replace this one with another one. Or perhaps this one is good enough for its purpose. -- Ram-Man 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• About 150°CW; unfortunately doing so makes the direction of the illumination (from below right) look rather odd. Would it be easy to take a new photo? - MPF 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's theoretically possible, but it wouldn't be for at least a week at the bare minimum and probably more than that. I don't have immediate access to the site at the moment. Of course it would be different lighting, a different cone, etc. etc. -- Ram-Man 21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Wonderful, --Mihael Simonič 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful, great quality --C·A·S·K 23:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Martin Kozák 11:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)