Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caupolicana electa, f, ga, baker, side 2015-01-08-09.24.44 ZS PMax (16394012107).jpg

File:Caupolicana electa, f, ga, baker, side 2015-01-08-09.24.44 ZS PMax (16394012107).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2015 at 19:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Caupolicana electa, f, ga, baker, side 2015-01-08-09.24.44 ZS PMax (16394012107).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caupolicana electa, f, ga, baker, side 2015-01-08-09.24.44 ZS PMax (16394012107).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
•  Info created by Sam Droege - uploaded by Natuur12 - nominated by Natuur12
•  Support -- a highly detailed and sharp picture of Caupolicana electa. The file is high quality and for me it has the WOW-factor. Every bodypart of the subject is clearly visible. Natuur12 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry but an antenna and a paw are blurred also the body (at the top) is too worked. Anyway in thumb is nice indeed. --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Livio, shooting small objects isn't quite as easy as shooting, say, a ceiling. Give it a try someday to realise. You can't expect to get same DOF here and on a landscape, church or ceiling subject. One could argue that there are tricks to work around this issue, but do we really need both antennas to be sharp? It's very likely it's symmetrical with the other one so we can somehow "figure it out". I agree with the strange artifacts over the rest of the body though. - Benh (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• throughout it is posterized, easy or difficult it is (Although for somebodies it is a problem and other not)--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 08:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• and more is a dead insect...is so difficult shoot a dead insect? --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 11:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Answer:Yes,like any other photo --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Answer: Yes, it is difficult to shoot a dead insect to the standards you want to apply to it. Depth of field is still a problem even when the subject is not moving. There are ways to bypass this (focus stacking) but even this is not a perfect method. It is difficult indeed. Diliff (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the filename, I can see that actually it was focus stacked already (Pmax is a focus stacking algorithm). So.... it could have been completely in focus. I don't think it's a problem that it wasn't, but I don't know why the photographer didn't try. Diliff (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Because I am busy right know, I am cooking --The Photographer (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• (was editing at same time) Well I think it's hard to get this nice position (don't you wonder how it has this position? Does it lies on the side? Is it hanged?). But just try to shoot any object this small as home, with the same nice lighting, and same DOF, and I feel confident you'll agree with me. - Benh (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think I could do it fairly easily. It would be pretty easy to pin it (through its abdomen) and then clone out the pin afterwards (which is maybe what the photographer did). The lighting wouldn't be difficult. Just shine an incandescent light (or two) onto it from the sides in a dark room. Instant warm light and black background. ;-) Diliff (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes; it is a pinned specimen. All info how it is photographed is available in the Flickr page with Youtube and PDF links. Jee 07:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Very good work. Yann (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Hubertl 22:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Very good, indeed. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Very weak support  Neutral I'm not a fan of dead insect photos and there are lots of posterized parts esp. on the top caused by over-processing but wow indeed. --Laitche (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC) _{--Laitche (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)}
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Claus 06:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I really wanted to support it as it looks great in thumbnail but the image quality at 100% is terrible. This is completely separate from the issues about macro photography mentioned above, which would be mitigating factors. It seems to be a processing problem (oversharpening and posterisation) rather than a photographic problem. Diliff (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversharpened. Otherwise very good. --Code (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

* Oppose For Code --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Striked --Cart (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Support It's a really good image for Wikispecies I suppose. --Tremonist (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support as Tremonist --Böhringer (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Diliff. --DXR (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Diliff. --Ivar (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Info Post-promoted due to sock double vote. 12 October 2018 --Cart (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)}}

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera