Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Darter August 2007-13.jpg

Image:Darter August 2007-13.jpg

Original (left), not featured

•  Info Female red-veined darter (Sympetrum fonscolombii). I thought the darter season was over for me, but then I saw these two gorgeous ladies and I couldn't resist. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Alvesgaspar 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support nice --Böhringer 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Yuval Y § Chat § 12:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support very nice --Lucas Löffler 14:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose too much loss of detail due to processing (USM?). Lycaon 09:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support nice --Beyond silence 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)  Oppose Good looking, but an FP can be more sharp. -- Beyond silence 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I have to accept the votes from Beyond silence like any other contribution, those are the ways of the wiki world. But I don't feel obliged to respect his opinions for they often demonstrate rudness, bad faith and a considerable igorance on the matters under evaluation. Fortunately this kind of behaviour is not too common here and normally doesn't last long. - Alvesgaspar 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am curious about it when he will contribute a picture to this list, and if, i guarantee, we will look veeeeeeeeery closely. :-)) --Richard Bartz 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment  Support This is nice, but be careful: At f/16 you lose image sharpness from diffraction that can't be fully recovered by image sharpening:

  1. f/10 -> 10MP maximum resolution
  2. f/13 -> 6MP maximum resolution
  3. f/16 -> 4MP maximum resolution

  So unless you are downsampling to those resolutions, the DoF increase may not be worth it, especially if you crop a lot. (See here for calculations). -- Ram-Man 03:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just a  Comment This looks like a vector graphic for me, sowhat postprocessed, I would say this is cheating, sportsmanlike. If this is your definition of your thrown in "raised bar", na servus. --Richard Bartz 17:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - I don't know the reason for this "painted" look, it is in the raw file also! I will have to verify if there is some noise reduction process active in the camera. Alvesgaspar 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be surprised it's due to some noise reduction process if it's already in the RAW file. As the name suggests, RAW files contain unprocessed datas from the sensor. -- Benh 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For me it looks like a heavy manipulation with Capture NX's unsharp mask --Richard Bartz 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Loss of any detail/structure, due very excessive postproduction. I hold it with the classic style and see this very sportsmanlike, sorry. But indeed a very nice picture. --Richard Bartz 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ack Richard. Might not have been intentional, but you only got your camera very recently, maybe you'll find out what happened. --Dschwen 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I've changed my vote to raise the bar. I originally evaluated this image at 2MP, and it is indeed acceptable at my standard viewing requirements. I didn't even notice and/or care about the overprocessing. But an exception to my standards should be made for insect photos: they should look better at higher resolutions based on the quality body of work that we already have. -- Ram-Man 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

result:' 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative (right), notfeatured

•  Info - Alternative improved picture added. Alvesgaspar 19:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Alvesgaspar 19:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Of course! -- Lycaon 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer 09:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour 13:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wings are distracting. -- Ram-Man 03:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition, wings are distracting. --Beyond silence 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Loss of detail/structure, due postproduction. I would prefer slight noise rather than this, cause for me it looks like a rubberlike darter, especially on the eyes, sorry. --Richard Bartz 00:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ack Richard. Might not have been intentional, but you only got your camera very recently, maybe you'll find out what happened. --Dschwen 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - A cropped version of this picture has been promoted to FP in the en:WP :-) - Alvesgaspar 06:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

result:' 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Simonizer 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)