Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portland Japanese Garden maple.jpg

File:Portland Japanese Garden maple.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 19:30:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Portland Japanese Garden maple.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portland Japanese Garden maple.jpg

•  Info created by Jeremy Reding - uploaded by Steven Walling - nominated by Steven Walling -- Steven Walling 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Steven Walling 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support some minor blown highlights but otherwise good quality. Composition is great, as is the timing. --ianaré (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Strong support Charming ! Lovely ! Japanese ! (minor) highlights adds, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Just beautiful. The color and the shadow is amazing. It is rare to find old maple tree like this even in Japan. I am envious of Portlanders who can visit this garden easily. --Shuhari (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Neutral A lovely scene, generally well captured, but let down IMO by some fringing/CA around the brighter patches (especially under the main branch, centre top). --Avenue (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree that there's some fringing that's pretty noticeable. But it's not the dreaded purple fringe, and I think it adds nice glow to the photo using the bright natural light. Just my opinion though, and I can see how you might disagree about its effect on educational value. Steven Walling 05:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • On reflection, it's not bad enough to oppose over. It's still a negative factor to me, but the photo's strengths compensate at least enough to leave me neutral. --Avenue (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Info Interesting that the tree has a Flickr group dedicated to it. --Avenue (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yeah, Portland's Japanese garden is pretty old (for the West coast, at least) and it's a favorite spot for photographers. Sadly a lot of the photos are in the heavily processed Flickr style. Steven Walling 05:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Great colors and atmosphere. --Mile (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment - does this affect the validity of the license on the image? They claim "Any photographer who uses images of the Portland Japanese Garden for commercial, advertising, or promotional purposes is required to pay $150 fee" - is that compatible with CC-BY-SA (free commercial use permitted), or is it just unenforceable bluster by the Portland garden? - MPF (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ugh, this sounds like the Olympics issue all over again. My unschooled and un-lawyerly opinion would be that it's unenforceable and it's unlikely to be challenged in court, so there's no sound reason to reject the photographer's right to license their work however they like. Steven Walling 17:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • An informal poll of my Portland photographer friends says that because the garden is private property, the restriction is legit. It sucks, but we may need to remove this and any other photos of the garden. :( Steven Walling 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm no expert either, but my thinking is that any rights the Garden might have over this image are sufficiently unclear that we needn't delete it. If the photographer signed an agreement about their photos when they entered the garden, they might have broken that agreement by licensing the image as they did, or if someone eventually uses the photo commercially. But we have no evidence of any contract. Without one, I think it's essentially unenforceable bluster. --Avenue (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants