Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chouette (Crâne).jpg

File:Chouette (Crâne).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2010 at 16:23:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Chouette (Crâne).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chouette (Crâne).jpg

•  Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment IMO not very sharp, small DOF (in combination with slight fokus problem?), and the strong sharpening made it look grainy. Nikopol (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Achird (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Steven Walling 11:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Nikopol, unsharp, especially rigth side. --Mile (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- As above. The granularity looks like jpeg artifacts. Is it really? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment More the resolution increases, more defects are visible --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Ggia (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support If the image was only 2 megapixels I'd expect it to be razor sharp. With 17 million pixels I'm not going to worry about it being not very sharp. --Calibas (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with Calibas. Ggia (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Support I agree with Calibas too. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose full ack. Nikopol. Sorry Archaeodontosaurus, but I think you can do it better. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I understand what more pixels bring, but in this case i think setting were not correct, to bad metafile isn't presented so all would be clearly seen. --Mile (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment The position of the skull at that distance requires to take two pictures, to have the subject clear. Merging the two is not always easy and perfect. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support This is an excellent photo! TEK (talk • e-mail) 22:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose noisy, unsharp --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 07:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not convinced by the overall quality. Lot's of pixels yes, but some parts are really not good (e.g. the posterior part of the jugal), being noisy and unsharp. To obtain a large DOF on small (macro)objects you should apply stacking techniques/software instead of trying to reconstruct the image manually. The image is of course very usable and useful and looks very good at thumbnail size, but for an FP it has to be better. Lycaon (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination - Thank you for the constructive criticism. I think I have progressed in this direction and I will redo this picture with two ambitions: to increase the resolution and increase the sharpness. I need 48 hours. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)