Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Senfweißling auf Pusteblume.jpg

File:Senfweißling auf Pusteblume.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 06:15:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Senfweißling auf Pusteblume.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Senfweißling auf Pusteblume.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info created - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose The out-of-focus seedhead doesn't work for me, nor does the yellow background. Butterfly is very sharp. I'd rotate a couple of degrees too. Charles (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Charles's complaints about the background. Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I have to agree on the background – while the butterfly itself is great, the distracting intensity of the screaming yellow spoils it. It feels like sipping a wonderful wine out of a candy-coloured plastic mug :) Try to lower the yellow saturation a bit, that hardly affects the rest of the image. --Kreuzschnabel 06:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose --per Charlesjsharp.Fischer.H (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Fischer.H, you are expected to give a reason for an oppose. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Looking at the photographer's uploads, the background is natural and makes a pleasant change. Also nice to see full size high resolution images of insects, which I don't recall seeing much of since Jee stopped taking photographs for FP. We've got used to <10MP recently, which is a bit of a backward step. I see insect photos up to 40MP in this photographers's upload list, which is a bit more like it for 2019. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• A bit more like it? Many photographers cannot afford 40MP capability. Jee's and my cameras only have 24MP. Charles (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Colin - not perfect, but great considering the size. Cmao20 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I also agree per Colin. A wonderfully sharp image, and, as for the yellow background, well, why not? I know how much effort and how many dozens of shots it takes to achieve such a high level of detail across the frame if the subject is alive, which I assume is the case here. My regular 42 MBit images of live insects usually whittle down to 10 MBit or less, thus my full respect for such a convincing image displaying an incredible width of 5531 pixels! By the way, this is the first image I have encountered lacking EXIF data. Any reason why? -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Franz van Duns the missing EXIF might be due to whatever software was last used to save the image. Some of the more basic programs just discard it. Alternatively, I think Photoshops "Save for the web" also discards it due to an 1990's mindset about saving a few bytes. You could ask the photographer what they used. Btw, Megapixels (MP) isn't the same as MBit (which is just filesize and depends on compression used). Filling the frame with an insect requires good kit and good technique and an awful lot of patience for failure. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Colin Thank you for your answer and your quick reply. It seems that the vast majority of contributors uses software that does pass on the EXIF data, more or less unchanged. Opps, I admit I was slightly distracted when I typed "MBit", when "MPixel" was what I actually meant. By the way, each one of my RAW files is approximately 85 MBytes (680 MBit) in size before being processed to the final JPG image. And yes, I also agree that much, much patience is the requisite element contributing to that singular image that stands out against dozens, or even hundreds, of technically perfect, but simply less outstanding images.

•  Support --Boothsift 05:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 10:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera