Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Common White-spot Skipper Butterfly.jpg

Green Grass-Dart

This image works well on a number of levels IMO, it is of high technical quality and enc value but also has strong aesthetic elements too. The DOF off the leaf edge creates a pleasing effect as it merges into the background as it moves out of focus. That coupled with a nice off centre composition and pleasing colours makes quite a nice photograph IMO

Appears in Skipper

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, i really hate to oppose this, but the DOF is just too shallow. --Aqwis (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aqwis and DOF. Sorry, Fir.--Here T oHelp 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your votes regarding the DOF, but keep in mind the technical limitations of macro photography due to the effects of diffraction. I also think that the relatively limited DOF works well in the first as I mentioned before, but at any rate significantly better DOF is not really possible. --Fir0002 00:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for original, oppose alternative 1, due to DOF problems. Caption is OK! ;-) --Janke | Talk 11:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either per nom.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original – marginally, as the focussed detail seems to be less well defined than the alt. Unlike the alt, which doesn't work due to the huge upfront OOF area, the original has a lot of appeal, drawing the eye in and along the body towards the eye. I'd love to see a bigger version to quash my doubts, but understand the constraints. A good, honest macro shot, I like it :o) --mikaul^talk 14:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I please suggest to add to the description page of each image the link to another image in the "Other Versions" tab. IMO every image adds value to another image and it would be nice to link them together.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Minor preference for original, although the blurred fore-wing in the alternate doesn't bother me. Great macro shots, both. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original, oppose alt. Although optimally more of the wing and thorax would be in focus, the detail and sharpness on the head is enough for me to support. But per Mick, the large OOF wing near the center of the alt is really distracting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malachirality (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Definitely FP-worthy. The detail and colors are outstanding and the DOF doesn't bother me at all. CillaИ ♦ XC 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original great shot as always Fir H92110 (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original. This is a nice shot with a lot of detail and coloring. Good luckMalinaccier (talk • contribs) 23:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose original Too much sharp effect to right eye then unnatural. Laitche 14:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skipper's eye is like this. --Laitche 17:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, my image shows how the skippers eyes looked perfectly (based on what I saw with my eyes of the butterfly). I hate to say it but yours are blurry and lack detail. --Fir0002 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know this is in Skipper (butterfly) not Skipper as linked in the nom - I wonder if anybody else even checked? Support original btw. --jjron 10:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I checked and realized but I didn't care :) -- Laitche 15:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Green Grass-Dart.jpg MER-C 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]