Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Cabbage and cross section on white.jpg
In today's world, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Cabbage and cross section on white.jpg has become a topic of great relevance and interest to a wide spectrum of people. Whether due to its impact on society, its implications in everyday life or its relevance in history, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Cabbage and cross section on white.jpg has positioned itself as a central point in current discussions and debates. As we explore this topic further, it is important to analyze all its facets and consider its influence on different aspects of our lives. This article seeks to delve into Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Cabbage and cross section on white.jpg from different perspectives and offer a broad and complete vision of its importance and relevance in today's world.
Lighting is fine for me, and you must of been way across the room with a 150mm lens for this. You have swiped the top of the right cabbage with a white paint brush though, and the white balance varies between the two images. The shadow on the RHS image is very blue. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No paint brush swipe - I did some selective levels to that section to brighten some grey shadows which must have caused it (feather effects). And yeah you're right there does look like a minor variation in WB. I'll do a reprocess probably tmrw. --Fir000214:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Why would they be looking in an encyclopedia for information about them if they knew things like that? I tend to look for things I don't know rather than read things I already know myself... Thus the viewers of this article may NOT know the size of a cabbage... Gazhiley (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Lol with all that discussion no one took the initiative to add the scale! Scale is approx 25cm in diameter (inner sphere) --Fir000214:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There are many things that could be added to a picture that are not necessarily clear... Not all pictures require size ref. If we ask for every picture to have size ref then why not ask for colour reference, speed of the subject with respect to the viewer reference. We could add many others magnitudes that people could ask and not know from the picture but I'll refrain from that since many might be computed from the metadata of the picture. But even this is not at all obvious how to do. Franklin.vp 21:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't need to clutter up the image with information that should be provided in the article text. Unless the subject is of a surprising scale, there is no reason to plaster a scale graphic onto the image. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
