Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Coccinella transversalis 2.jpg
Coccinella transversalis[edit]
- Reason
- Depth of field is thin, but this is at 3:1. It is in focus where important.
- Articles this image appears in
- Coccinella transversalis, Coccinella, Coccinellidae
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Regretfully, IMHO the narrow DOF is just too much of a problem. Such a small part of the whole image is actually in focus. Essentially you've got the eyes (just), the head, half a front claw, a bit of wing, and some of the leaf it's on. I know DOF is tough for macro shots... Stevage 03:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is 3 times (or more) the magnification of most macro shots that go through here. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can you post examples? I'm looking through, and can't find any where there is so little in focus (cf this). Or maybe the problem is that the ladybug's head is relatively featureless compared to this or this, for example. Possibly exacerbated by front-on pose? Stevage 09:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- In those examples the subject is much bigger. This entire beetle is just a bit bigger than the head of the Cetonia-aurata example. The fly is around three times as long as this. this, give or take, is the sort of difference in magnification between the fly and the beetle. Unfortunately depth of field starts getting very thin at high magnifications. Sometimes you can cheat, and stack, like File:Calliphora_sp_Portrait.jpg, but that doesn't work with a moving subject. For reference a single frame of that stack actually looks like this. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can you post examples? I'm looking through, and can't find any where there is so little in focus (cf this). Or maybe the problem is that the ladybug's head is relatively featureless compared to this or this, for example. Possibly exacerbated by front-on pose? Stevage 09:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is 3 times (or more) the magnification of most macro shots that go through here. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support. The depth of field is adequate IMO. I'd rather see an unstacked shallow DOF than a focus-stack with lots of distracting artifacts and inconsistent sharpness. My support is weak, however, due to the harsh lighting and untypical pose. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted (No quorum) --Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 02:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
