Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015.07.04.-09-Eilenburg Ost--Barbarossa-Fliege-Maennchen.jpg

File:2015.07.04.-09-Eilenburg Ost--Barbarossa-Fliege-Maennchen.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2015 at 07:57:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2015.07.04.-09-Eilenburg Ost--Barbarossa-Fliege-Maennchen.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015.07.04.-09-Eilenburg Ost--Barbarossa-Fliege-Maennchen.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family_:_Asilidae_.28Robber_flies.29
•  Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hockei (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral To me it's the most impressive macro in a while (it's reminiscent of Richard_Bartz work somehow), but it's simply not there from a technical point of view. Despite the small size, it's unsharp and the fine details are missing. It even looks upscaled. How sad. - Benh (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The size of the picture corresponds to the guideline and I never scale any picture in any direction. Neither down nor up. Please don't suggest thinks like that. --Hockei (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Sorry if you took it personally. - Benh (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Not personally. You are welcome to give a vote and comment my pictures. Thanks for this. But I just don't like that this false scale-thing is in air. --Hockei (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Info Slightly sharpened. --Hockei (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I can't really find a sharp area. Doesn't look like a lack of sharpening to me, almost as if it was interpolated to the current size. — Julian H.^✈ 12:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

interpolated Once more: It isn't.  I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if I say "almost as if", I specifically want to say that it looks like that, not that that's actually the case. — Julian H.^✈ 12:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As I was afraid it's suggested. However, I've uploaded the fourth and last version without that I want to get another opinion and keep the withdrawal. --Hockei (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the unsharpness is most likely because of the aperture used. F/13 on a Micro Four Thirds camera means strong diffraction. That and it's cropped considerably from original resolution and at ISO 400, is starting to exhibit noise on a MFT sensor that is 3 years old now. All of this contirbutes to a sub-optimal image quality. I agree with Benh though that it's pretty good, compositionally. Diliff (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)