Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Polietes lardarius sideview artistic Richard Bartz.jpg

Image:Polietes lardarius sideview artistic Richard Bartz.jpg, not featured

•  Info created & uploaded & nominated by Richard Bartz ^talk 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Info If you think the earlier picture is to straight and enc. I can offer you this.
•  Support Frisky and surreal, for those who know Richard Bartz ^talk 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral for now - The subject is lovely if a twinge small, but I really don't like what appears to be an applied blur over the rock in the foreground. The line along which it ends intersects with some of the rufous colouring on the rock near the fly and it bothers me. Perhaps a more graduated blue to give the illusion of DOF would be better. Therefore the neutral for now; I'd like to see what the photo looked like before the blur. Gorgeous otherwise, no complaints aside from the blur : ) Doodle-doo Ħ 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - No way, I take this as an aesthetical experience (which didn't work out) - Alvesgaspar 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is called trendsetting ;) --Richard Bartz 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose I don't like the composition either, and for another insect it should be something amazing. Dori - Talk 04:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think it has too much blurred background and foreground. /Ö 09:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Good selective DOF, nice dynamic lines. --Thermos 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral I think the line ascending from left to right shouldn't go directly through the corners and it is in general a bit too steep. The fly should look in the other direction...not "outside the photo". I give neutral bcs i always appreciate it when people experiment with compositions - i would love to see more such experiments here. --AngMoKio 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral Cropped, I support. Because the rest is good -- Walké 14:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose, a similar image with the fly at the top instead of at the bottom i would have supported. This i can not support. --Aqwis 19:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I thought a lot about the comments regarding the composition. Not that i have planned/calculated this before but even a golden spiral fits perfectly onto this composition (showing that i dont unlearned my sense of proportion) ... just to show up that this picture is not trivial. It's a matter of opinion if the fly is moving upward or downward, is the journey the reward ? Is it christianity that you have always the feeling something should go upwards, like jesus was going on the Mount of Olives ? Or is it the feeling of the conqueror who want to be the king of the hill. The truth is that i have taken 120 pictures where no flies moved upwards, they all came along from the top of the treestump, dont ask me why and I as a nature-photographer tried to ban this on my sensor with my own style of symbolic speech. --Richard Bartz 20:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I would like to see the not-pshopped original. -- carol 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I think a roughly 20 degree clockwise rotation and a tighter crop would make this a better picture, something like but without the horrible clone-stamp job. Of course, this may be impossible to do keeping it over 2 million pixels. Calibas 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Info @ Carol'n'Calibas ;-) Find the uncropped, uninterpolated 10mp version here --Richard Bartz 01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Iam convinced now that this is not the right place to nominate such pictures, thank you very much for your constructive comments --Richard Bartz 09:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

hmm...what do u mean by "such pictures"? The picture is no far away from a picture i would support. I would regret not to see more "such pictures" here. --AngMoKio 10:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)