Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dragonfly compound eyes02.jpg: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:34, 23 October 2006

Dragonfly Compound Eye

I had intended to suspend uploading/nominating any images until my exams are over, but I noticed that the existing dragonfly FP was being delisted and thought that this was a worthy replacement, so I decided to have a quick break :-)
The alternative is just a tighther crop of the original image - it shows the eye better, but I prefer the composition on this version.

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 03:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think a tighter crop might actually be better, but regardless this is a wonderful image. Bonus points -- how many cells are in those eyes? Severnjc 04:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which article is this image supposed to add to so significantly that it was nominated here? Also if the eye is the subject the DOF is a bit too shallow. --Dschwen 06:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Compound eye!! - Adrian Pingstone 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, you are right, why didn't it show up in the what links here section when I checked? --Dschwen 08:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It looks like Fir0002 switched the alternative image with the nominee mere minutes after you voted (diff). --Tewy 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit of loss of DOF at this magnification is OK IMHO - Adrian Pingstone 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Love it. Dragonflies apparently have 30kilopixel eyes. Fir - I'm curious was your subject still alive when you snapped this? Debivort 07:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, suprising as it may seem. It was a pretty cold day and he was sheltering from the wind. Managed to get a few snaps before he flew off. --Fir0002 09:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Dragonflies are very hard to catch in a net, much less on film - so congrats. Debivort 20:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Focus plane could have been just a tad farther away. Also, I see a weak, but strange color moire in the highlighted part of the eye (only in full-size) - I wonder, is this real, or a CCD artifact? And yes, for compound eye, a closer shot would be preferable. --Janke | Talk 08:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't have a clue, but I don't think it'd be a CCD artefact. --Fir0002 09:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree that the focal plane should have been a bit further away, but the other aspects of this image more than make up for it. -- Moondigger 19:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support superb pic.--Húsönd 02:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The picture is quite good, but neither does it focus on the subject (which makes it a bad choice as a lead picture in Compound eye, it would be better off in the Dragonfly article) nor does it have sufficient resolution to provide more insight than the former picture which is now beeing delisted. --Dschwen 08:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, the actual size of the eye is pretty much the same in both pictures, I see little improvement, apart from a little more sharpness and less glare. But the composition of the old image was superior. --Dschwen 08:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the alternative any more to your liking? --Fir0002 09:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a step in the right direction, but I'd go further. I liked the composition of the old pic a lot more. --Dschwen 21:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose original. It's a great shot, but the focus of the picture isn't on the eyes. I suppose it does show where the eyes are in relation to the head, but it's just not close enough to make out many details on the eyes themselves. --Tewy 19:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at in full res? Particularly in the alternative version? --Fir0002 06:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Very weak support alternate. The alternate is a hair sharper and larger than the original, and I suppose it shows the detail just enough for me to support. --Tewy 17:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The main subject - the eyes - are not crisp clear. Also, the blown highlight is annoying and spoils the image - Alvesgaspar 21:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weap Support. I don't see any blown highlights, but the DOF is a little too shallow. I would fully support the alternate. NauticaShades 16:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Too many other elements present in the image in addition to the subject. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support alternate - still not quite there DOF-wise, but it is a very good shot nonetheless. --YFB ¿ 01:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 *'''Weap Support'''. I don't see any blown highlights, but the DOF is a little too shallow. I would fully support the alternate. '''''[[User:Nauticashades|Nautica]]''<font color="black">[[User Talk:Nauticashades|Shad]]</font><font color="black">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font><font color="black">[[Special:Contributions/User:Nauticashades|s]]</font>''' 16:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Weak oppose'''. Too many other elements present in the image in addition to the subject. — [[User:Ambuj.Saxena|Ambuj Saxena]] ([[User talk:Ambuj.Saxena|talk]]) 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Weak support alternate''' - still not quite there DOF-wise, but it is a very good shot nonetheless. --[[User:Yummifruitbat|YFB]] [[User talk:Yummifruitbat|<font color="33CC66">¿</font>]] 01:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 {{-}}