Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bryum capillare peristome.jpg

File:Bryum capillare peristome.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2014 at 19:03:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bryum capillare peristome.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bryum capillare peristome.jpg

1891

4439

526

214

3288

4932

Halos all around, such as here, need to be cleaned up. Faint but quite visibile at full resolution with a properly calibrated monitor. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

493

1808

296

263

3288

4932

In this region, too, among others. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Info created by Des Callaghan - uploaded by Des Callaghan - nominated by Des Callaghan -- Des Callaghan (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Des Callaghan
•  Support Impressive and refreshing topic. Please add the details of the image creation process to the file page. That is where it belongs. You can use, e.g., the {{Photo Information}} template. The EXIF data are very much stripped from useful technical data -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Unfortunately there are milky "halo" artifacts from the production hovering all around the subject. I added a couple image notes at some places they occur. Very visible and sloppy looking at full resolution, at least on my monitor. It should be easy to clean up and then I'd be happy to support. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Info Hello Kbh3. Thankyou for your comments. You are right, I didn’t bother to try to remove any halos within the subject, only around the black edges. This is because of laziness and because it is a lot more tricky (requiring some cloning and ‘making up’ what I think should be there). The halos are an inevitable result of stacked images of non-flat subjects. The camera sensor either saw these areas as uncontaminated but out of focus (when focus is on the foreground) or focused but contaminated (when focus is on the background). I’ve had a go at improving their look and replaced the image with a new version. Thanks again for commenting Des Callaghan.
•  Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Info Hello again Kbh3. Please ignore my above reply to your comments. I misunderstood. The mucky black bits are now fixed. Des Callaghan.
•  Support No words -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 20:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Well done and exceptional educational value. Just out of curiosity: how did you achieve the high magnification? --El Grafo (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Basik07 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I am impressed with the technical accomplishment but it is flawed. I don't like the way it has been abruptly cut-out on black. Shooting a subject to have a pure white or black background isn't trivial but you need to get most of the way there in reality and only let software help perfect -- rather than getting out the scissors. But mainly I don't think the bright glow in the middle and round the "tendrils" is real, vs an artefact of the flash. It looks like some alien being charging up its death ray :-) The stacking in that bright middle section goes a little haywire too. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support  A l p h a m a  ^Talk 05:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--DXR (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants