Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zygaena lonicerae.jpg

File:Zygaena lonicerae.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2009 at 08:01:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Zygaena lonicerae.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zygaena lonicerae.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Slight image noise, but a truly great picture nontheless. Brings back memories of macros that are more than just close ups of insects, but have artistic value as well. -- JovanCormac 10:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very nice composition; reminds me of Richard. But very noisy. --Muhammad (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition, poor quality. —kallerna™ 11:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice photo, quality good enough. Wow for me -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I cannot believe how much noise there is at ISO 100 on this photo. Has it been digitally modified? Diti the penguin — 15:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, editet: crop, denoise and etc. About noise: photo taken not with Canon 50D, but with Panasonic FZ50 . Matrix is very noisy, especially color noise. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Multimotyl (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice, looks a bit precarious though :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great colors!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Below macro FP standards: seems to have lost quite a bit of detail possibly due to noise reduction. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but I think the quality is sufficient. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose-- Not crisp enough compared to other macros. If I'm not mistaken, the subject is dead which makes an easy capture of an image, thus this one could have been better. ZooFari 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • How do you know it's dead? Airwolf (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Dead?! You kidding? Photo sessions after he flew as well. Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry if I was wrong. It just seemed awkward that the insect's head was leaning on the stem and not all legs grasped on to it. I'll assume integrity. ZooFari 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Info I upload new version. Maybe now problems are fixed. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 13:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
•  <VERY LOUDLY> People, if you want to add annotations on technical flaws in a particular image, use the nomination page, and not the fil page. The annotations on the file page are there for the world to see and should only be used to add comments about elements of the image itself. Airwolf (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
•  SupportI think it's beautiful enough to overcome the barely sufficient quality. 99of9 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose oversharpened --ianaré (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose oversharpened --663h (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
•  OpposeI really like the composition and colours but in full format it does not look very good. Might be overprocessed. --Korall (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Much too noisy, sorry. --Yerpo (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Petritap (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)