Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Passionfruit and cross section.jpg

Passionfruit and Cross Section

Reason: Technically very good and very high EV
Articles this image appears in: Passiflora edulis
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a very good photo series. --Avala (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support an excellent set-very clear,simple and consistent. I'm becoming very impressed with Fir's photographs! Lemon martini (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never had one, but this doesn't look yummy. Good EV nonetheless. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good Noodle snacks (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose This one is more eye catching of a subject but my feeling still stand per the other fruit and veg noms. I think there is strong encyclopedic merit to seeing the fruit attached to its tree as well/instead. Mfield (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand all these opposes based on fruits unattached to trees. Probably most consumers of any given fruit never see it attached to a tree. The tree has little to no connection to the culinary aspect of a fruit, which is probably the most important aspect of commercially important fruits like these. That is not to say there is no place for a tree photo somewhere in the article, but opposing a fruit photo because it does not contain a tree is like opposing a photo of meat because you don't see the cow too. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very reason that most consumers never see the fruit attached to a tree provides a reason for the most encyclopedic shot of the subject to be taken under the natural conditions. FWIW, I don't remember seeing any featured pictures of meat :-) --Muhammad(talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the distinction (IMHO) comes between food photography and nature photography. You have to chose to capture the plant in its environment or the plant as food. If the latter I think the image may be more appealing with the subject in more of a still life setting rather than on the clinical white background which is helpful for designers etc. but does not necessarily make for visually engaging and feature-worthy photographic illustration. I think if they were shot on a nice plain non distracting complementary background with a simple plate/knife to provide some sense of scale my opinion would be different. Mfield (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Excellent technicals, but a passionfruit at the appropriate degree of ripeness for eating is much wrinklier on the surface (like this). My lips are puckering just looking at the photo! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it was quite good - perhaps not the sweetest I've ever eaten but definitely ripe --Fir0002 10:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can taste the passionfruit by viewing this. Very nice. Spencer^T♦^C 21:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The only thing that I'd even consider adding is some kind of size reference (which could even go in the caption). Spikebrennan (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Passionfruit and cross section.jpg MER-C 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]