Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 21:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tectus niloticus 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tectus niloticus 01.JPG
Oppose Poor quality (I think because of bad camera setting used), harsh flat front lighting, probably a missing view (90° angle between shots, and only 5 view). Unforgivable errors on repeatable shots in my opinion. I could copy and paste my other reviews on similar pics. - Benh (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather blurry and also sloppy masking. Large size does not compensate for quality in images taken in a controlled environment. W.S.07:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry W.S., I think you have not the right to vote. According to the new guidelines, only editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. I know not a single edit! --Llez (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did. That's kind of what shells look like up close - glossy yet chalky. The blotches and stripes aren't going to be totally pure from the white parts, the colors will smudge and blur together like that naturally. You can see tiny dimples and ridges. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think about the patterns when I talk about the blurriness, and I don't think Sneavar did either. The fine reliefs you mention and that we can see should be sharper than that. Nothing is as sharp as it deserves at f/32. See this [1]. We already notice that f/16 alters the image quality, so we can imagine how bad a setting f/32 is. Maybe it was for getting more DOF, but not sure this is a good compromise. - Benh (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better DOF often means better sharpness overall, the primary concern of F numbers seems to be brightness not sharpness and in the case of a scientific image meant to show off detail of an item like this one I don't see anything else that could matter besides getting the full depth. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really... DOF is the part of the image where sharpness is close enough to the best spot. If that best spot if already very bad, as in f/32, you'll be only close enough to bad. Since you seem to care about quality of a scientific image, you should be a bit more picky about that. Also please note the use of ISO 200 when this is absolutely not necessary. So, either each image could be shot a lower f number, meaning better quality and less DOF, but the OOF parts would likely be in focus on the other views anyways; or either author could use stack focusing, as per this very fine example of this (not hard at all to use) technique. Well it's a bit harder on potentially moving macro subjects. - Benh (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Poor quality (I think because of bad camera setting used), harsh flat front lighting, probably a missing view (90° angle between shots, and only 5 view). Unforgivable errors on repeatable shots in my opinion. I could copy and paste my other reviews on similar pics. - Benh (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Sorry W.S., I think you have not the right to vote. According to the new guidelines, only editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. I know not a single edit! --Llez (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
