Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tawny coster (Acraea terpsicore) underside Phuket.jpg

File:Tawny coster (Acraea terpsicore) underside Phuket.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2022 at 21:32:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Tawny coster (Acraea terpsicore) underside Phuket.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tawny coster (Acraea terpsicore) underside Phuket.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
•  Info We have one FP of this species. Female showing mating plug. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 07:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversharpened, suggest to reprocess. I find that, at or near default settings, Topaz and other AI tools are far too aggressive, often introducing i) artificial detail to sharp areas (e.g. wings) and ii) jagged edges to slightly out-of-focus areas (e.g. flower) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose I kept silent because often it seems I am the only one who thinks that such photos are oversharpened, but now I have to second Julesvernex2’s comment. IMHO your photos would be even better with less agressive (noise reduction and) sharpening, Charles. --Aristeas (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• It can be a matter of taste, but I am happy to reprocess. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• New version uploaded Julesvernex2, Aristeas, at 50% of Topaz Denoise AI settings. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Big improvement, in my opinion: the "wormy" artefacts on the wings are gone, and the flower benefited from being excluded from the sharpening mask. This is indeed a matter of taste, but I would argue that we should err on the side of caution with images uploaded to Commons, as the final user can always add - but never subtract - sharpening. One last question: did you tweak exposure and saturation, or are the slight changes a result of the subdued Topaz settings? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have no idea what I tweaked last time! I didn't make any adjustments this time. AS you see from the vote below, sharpening is not an exact science! Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Thank you very much, Charles, it looks much more natural in my eyes now! --Aristeas (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose IMO Not enough sharp for FP. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good, but quite small. I think our bar for butterfly-images is higher. —kallerna (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Wieggy (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Neutral A good shot, but in the meanwhile I expect more sharpness and a better lighting for FP, on the other side the compo is good and we have only 1 FP of this species Poco a poco (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose The top leg of the butterfly is visibly out of focus and is an essential part of the butterfly.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• True; well spotted Famberhorst. But is this an objective vote? I am curious how you can oppose this photo with its out-of-focus leg, yet support the pigeon nomination. Is the back half of the pigeon not an essential part of the bird? Please explain. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• If you think the top leg of the butterfly is really sharp, I approve the photo. it's your choice.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• What? I said above that the leg is out of focus. Please answer my question relating to the inconsistency of your voting decisions on the two animal FPCs. You must have an explanation; I'd like to know what it is. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Answer: I don't understand that this photo with such an eye-catching blurry leg has so many pro voters. As for the pigeon. That is a completely different picture and not comparable. The head of the pigeon is nicely sharp and slowly turns into the blurry tail. I just want to close this discussion.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)