Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Heliconius melpomene 2 Richard Bartz.jpg

Image:Heliconius melpomene 2 Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured

•  Info created & nominated by --Richard Bartz 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Info There was a version which was featured on en.WP a few days ago. This version for Commons is much better ;-)
•  Support --Richard Bartz 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support but you should fix the date on your camera (or your computer) as it says it's from 10:04, 8 March 2008. --Dori - Talk 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Richard, you've really messed up the background with these later edits in my opinion. I also don't think it's right to make major changes to the image while votes have been placed. Now it's not clear whether those same votes would stand with the current version. --Dori - Talk 05:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It was the only chance to get grip on the posterization, will reset the nomination to make shure everything is in order --Richard Bartz 12:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 8th March, 2008 is not coming yet. Richard must have taken a future picture. This is not a featured picture, this is a future picture :) -- Laitche 18:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the man from the future and hey Laitche! This is a japanese camera!!! with a non working clock ;-) --Richard Bartz 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will complain to Canon :) -- Laitche 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much and tell them they should hurry with the 5D Mark II :-) --Richard Bartz 14:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Support This is a better picture than the en.WP version (what were they thinking?). It's slightly over-sharpened and the resolution should be higher, but I think it just barely passes my minimum requirements. -- Ram-Man 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Er, Considering that this picture wasn't uploaded when the other one was featured, I'm betting they weren't thinking anything, so give en.WP a break perhaps. Richard, you held out on us :( Pschemp 05:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Posterization is slight on the borderline. -- Laitche 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure about the posterization. -- Laitche 19:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Doubleplus-slight posterization fixed --Richard Bartz 23:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Almost there but not quite. I don't like the tight crop, the image should be larger, it is oversharpened and there is really some posterization in the LR corner (not serious, maybe it can be fixed). Finally, the subject is too dark for my taste. - Alvesgaspar 20:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I can't take this serious. The leaf where the butterfly is standing on is close to overexposure, so how much light should i spend on a black butterfly ? --Richard Bartz 22:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Support --Beyond silence 22:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I've had the source material shown to me, the sharpness is already in the source image. While it may not be absolutely perfect, it is FP material no doubt, by bounds and leaps. --Digitaldreamer 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Top. --Bergwolf 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. --Calibas 01:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Wish you would have uploaded it sooner, along with its brother though. Pschemp 05:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Reset for the concerns by Dori --Richard Bartz 12:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)