Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moscas. Fecundación. Bastavales, Brión, 090905.jpg
File:Moscas. Fecundación. Bastavales, Brión, 090905.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2010 at 19:38:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Copula of Musca domestica in Bastavales, Brión, Galicia, Spain. Created by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez - uploaded by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez - nominated by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez -- Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- I'm not sure. Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- This is a very good picture, considering the relative simple camera used. But the subject is underexposed probably due to the contre-jour conditions of the shot. Maybe a smart levels adjustment and a slight saturation increase could do the job ... and make me support the nomination. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- It should not matter what camera is used. Images shoild be reviewed on basis of their merit alone --Muhammad (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think Alvesgaspar means that it is a good picture for a simple camera. He is not commenting based on that. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- (With that camera, I consider difficult to do the photo better: 1/2.000 sec. - f/7.1 - ISO 80 - only 1 flash - room almost without light). Sorry, for me, the photo could be overexposed, not underexposed--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think Alvesgaspar means that it is a good picture for a simple camera. He is not commenting based on that. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- It should not matter what camera is used. Images shoild be reviewed on basis of their merit alone --Muhammad (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support Ggia (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support No clipping; dark surfaces have to appear dark in the image. Great detail! -- Any1s (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose IMO for FP, better is possible --Muhammad (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Petritap (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Muhammad. --Citron (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The lighting is a little dull. --99of9 (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per 99of9 --mathias K 15:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose animals lack contrast. --Quartl (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Other version
[edit]- Info Not overexposed and not underexposed (for me and with adobe lightroom 3.0), with more contrast and clarity--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose IMO for FP, better is possible --Muhammad (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If your image it's better, why don't you propose your image to QI? Perhaps do you compare flies with red eyes with the flies with black or dark eyes? What you compare, please? Images shoild be reviewed on basis of their merit alone, not in comparison with others: I know that my image is not the best possible one--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Both images show the same species of fly. What I intended to show was that your image is not properly lit since the colours don't come out all that well. --Muhammad (talk)`
- I can't say this in english: Español: Sin embargo, los ojos de cualquier ciudadano de Galicia (Spain) asegurarían que tu foto está sobresaturada y falseada, y que la mía es real. Quizás no sean los ojos de todas las moscas iguales, cosa que ya sé de antemano, pues las moscas domésticas de Galicia tienen los ojos practicamente negros. Por favor, diga algo sobre la foto que no esté basado en si el díptero es de una manera o de otra, o en la comparación con su foto o su experiencia en el objeto de la foto. (por otro lado, su foto, si los ojos de las moscas en su mundo son así, me parece excelente)--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can't say this in english:
- Both images show the same species of fly. What I intended to show was that your image is not properly lit since the colours don't come out all that well. --Muhammad (talk)`
Translation:However, any Galician citizens would assert that your photo is over saturated, falsificated whereas mine is not. Maybe not every flies' eyes are equal, something that I know, as Galician flies have their eyes almost black. Please, you should not say something about the photo on the basis of the appearance of the dipterous, the comparation of your image or your experience on the photographed object. (If the flies in your part of the world look this way, then that's excellent for me)
- Most flies have reddish eyes and all houseflies have red eyes. See this, this and this. The eyes in my image are not over saturated. The fact that your fly is sitting on a white surface has led it to be improperly exposed. It is not a bad picture but IMO it is not enough for FP --Muhammad (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK. You won!--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why your words (Both images show the same species of fly. What I intended to show was that your image is not properly lit since the colours don't come out all that well.) are without hour and date. I think that you know the reason--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK. You won!--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Most flies have reddish eyes and all houseflies have red eyes. See this, this and this. The eyes in my image are not over saturated. The fact that your fly is sitting on a white surface has led it to be improperly exposed. It is not a bad picture but IMO it is not enough for FP --Muhammad (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment I can't say this in english:
--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Translation:After this second proposal I have got in contact with all of the participants in this debate to inform them about it, not because I want to influence or interfere with somebody's vote, just because I think it's ethical as they have voted.
- Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support With this one, you can see that many hairs on the one fly's head are blown out on the other one. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support Ggia (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Petritap (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The lighting is a little dull. --99of9 (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per 99of9 --mathias K 15:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support--Sandahl (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Doesn't meet insect macro standards for FP. Lycaon (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose animals lack contrast. --Quartl (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose not enough color --HoverFly (Contribs...Chat?) 15:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)