Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Two-lined gum treehopper02.jpg

Two-lined gum treehopper[edit]

I guess I should stick to photography... :) Found a young tree with these tiny critters crawling over it so took a few snaps. High quality and high enc value. It was a shame I cropped off the ant's antennae but they were moving very fast (both the ant and the antennae) so it was quite fortunate I got it in frame at all.

Appears in Leafhopper

Support Any --Fir0002 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative 1--Mbz1 13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all - Bad flash lighting, insufficient DOF, tight crops. It would be nice to make the Exif info available - Alvesgaspar 13:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Where is the Proposed caption and the Reason for nominating? - Alvesgaspar 14:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Proposed caption is "Two-lined gum treehopper, Eurymeloides bicincta on a eucalypt branch", reason is that it is a high quality image with high enc value. Why do you say that the crops are too tight? --Fir0002 03:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prefer more space around the critters but I supposed this style of cropping is kind of a trademark of yours. Alvesgaspar 12:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative 1 Always amazing detail. The ant sort of detracts the subject, but it helps give us an idea on just how large the treehopper is. Puddyglum 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original I'd like some Exif data too, why do you strip it from your pictures? anyway, nice shot. and uh, 10mm in length... could we just simplify things and call it a centimeter? ;-) -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, yeah well I think generally when you talk about insects and stuff you do it in mm. Exif is stripped when saving for web in photoshop (which I do to reduce file size as you can see below...) --Fir0002 03:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Original - Nice close up, i find the others distracting slightly --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all Alt 1 is decidedly the best for my taste but the framing on the ant with the distracting leaf is unfortunate. I would like to see the EXIF data to get an better idea of the picture's situation. --Central Powers 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason for your oppose? --Fir0002 23:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, on the original version i found the DOF unfortunatly and the insect in the background distracting. Alt 2 has better DOF but the flashlight especially on the branch is too harsh for my taste. --Central Powers 23:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean by "DOF unfortunately" that it is too shallow? In which case this is somewhat unusual since it has identical aperture and if anything better angle to Alt 2 in terms of getting more in focus. It is perhaps unfortunate that the other tree hopper is there, but that is how they cluster along the branch; and surely if you didn't find the other terns in Image:Crested tern444 edit.jpg distracting the very much OOF secondary hopper shouldn't make too much of a difference...? --Fir0002 00:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate DOF or shallow DOF that's one way of putting it ;) --Central Powers 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Alt 2. The cleanest composition for mine, the other hoppers in the background in the others are a bit distracting, especially in thumbnail. Weak as the flash reflection is a little bright. (Now this nom is going to be confusing to close.) --jjron 12:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 1 or 2 prefer alt 1, as ant interaction is very enc. Debivort 19:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Two-lined gum treehopper03.jpg MER-C 03:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]