Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ephippiger HD.jpg

File:Ephippiger HD.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2010 at 07:17:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ephippiger HD.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ephippiger HD.jpg

3391

1575

280

467

5174

3500

The photo appears soft in this area. Why? Is it the the specular light in this areas which makes it appear slightly out of focus here? --Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Info created by archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral for now, but may change my vote if the specular reflexions are removed by some smart cloning. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question -- Was the critter was alive? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is not easy to see that he is naturalized. To 11 image with moving the camera must be stationary subjects (particularly antennas) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support scary but good. Tanakashi (talk) Puppet. Yann (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support-- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Nearly oppose Edges are a bit strong and overall it's pretty unrealistic. I want to oppose out of principle because this is overworked yet what FPC is more likely to pass than a natural photograph of an insect - Kind of a shame. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• This image is very special. It has a purpose: to see, as the most accurate, the anatomy of the insect. If I had the idea of placing mounted insects on flowers you would not see. For him there is no ambiguity, my laboratory work remain on artificial background. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Elekhh (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Question The focus stacking works very well. I noticed an area (see annotation), which appears softer or not as crisp as remaining parts of the insect. Why is that? --Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Well observed. But that kind of detail that often see after several hours. The positioning of the micrometer screw is at hand and sometimes the gap is not the ideal range. It takes a picture and then advance the tray, and you tighten a screw stabilization. It is often uneven tightening which created a gap. You can not redo a single picture must redo the entire series. It is a work of patience but we must practice a lot closer to a good result. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Thanks for clarifying. It is certainly a very minor technical detail and not something to make a big fuzz over. I was just curios regarding origin of my observation. --Slaunger (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods