Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drone Birth HR.jpg

File:Drone Birth HR.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2019 at 16:30:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Drone Birth HR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drone Birth HR.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
•  Info created and uploaded by Jonathan Wilkins - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 16:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I really love macrophotography. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 16:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Arion, your noise reduction has introduced visible artifacts and IMHO the noise is not excessive enough to require it. – Lucas 17:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Lucasbosch:  Reverted. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support The DOF is a bit too far on the front of the drone, but photographing this wasn't easy I imagine. – Lucas 17:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Removed support in favor of alternative. – Lucas 17:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support A bit noisy, but IMO excusable given this is a difficult and quite impressive shot. Cmao20 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - I'm captivated by this picture, so it's an FP to me, though I do think it's quite questionably an FP on technical grounds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support vote crossed out in favor of the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --BoothSift 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Moved to alt--BoothSift 18:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 08:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Question why does this have 3,246 pixels on the short side when the original 5D only has 2,912? This kind of up-scaling makes it look worse than it really is … --El Grafo (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per El Grafo, sorry. --A.Savin 16:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• El Grafo, A.Savin: do we have evidence that it was upscaled? Maybe it is a composite of several shots to get more of the environment top and bottom. I would clarify with the photographer before opposing because of guesses. – Lucas 16:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Lucas: No hard evidence. But if it helps, here's the reasoning behind my guessing (which indeed it is): 1) In macro photography, you typically have the opposite problem – "too much" environment because you can't get close enough to your subject for one reason or another (so you'll have to crop some of it away). 2) The picture was shot in 2007. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this kind of elaborate compositing images we've gotten used to were routinely done back then? 3) I'm not sure whether what you're proposing is even possible. I don't have to tell you that shooting macro at close distance is very different from stitching a panorama. I imagine you'd probably run into big parallax-induced issues in stitching as soon as you start swivelling the camera (putting together a straight focus stack can be difficult enough if you're not really really careful while shooting). 4) Under close inspection, the noise pattern in the background of File:Drone Reconnoitering.jpg (the original upload) looks quite normal to me. The noise in the background of the candidate has some kind of a pattern to it that reminds me of JPG artifacts. --El Grafo (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Neutral pending resolution of the upscaling issue. Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Upscaled. --Yann (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Yann. --Cart (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Alternative

•  Support @El Grafo, A.Savin, and Daniel Case: Original upload added as alternative. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks to El Grafo for explaining. – Lucas 17:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --BoothSift 18:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support, but Arion, I think you should address the question of whether you upscaled the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I am not the uploader. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too small with 1,811 × 1,447 pixels; and yes, if upscaling is the only way to increase its resolution, the photo is simply not an FP for me -- not in the original size, and surely not in the upscaled version. Sorry --A.Savin 02:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per A.Savin. --Cart (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @A.Savin: I think there are "strong mitigating reasons" for that (by the way, we have already promoted pictures with similar resolution: File:Kaubalaeva "E. Russ" vrakk.jpg, File:Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba).jpg…). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 03:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Those examples were featured years ago and much has happened in photography since then. They are also underwater photos, bees are not that hard to find. --Cart (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• +1. --A.Savin 13:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 02:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)