Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baccha bequaerti.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Baccha bequaerti.jpg, withdrawn
[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 May 2009 at 13:57:15
Info Everything Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Cute composition but I don't like the harsh frontal flash lighting at the expense of plasticity and exposure. Good but not perfect. --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Neutral composition is nice. But I really wonder why the resolution is so low. The bar for bugs is really high as we have many high-res shots there. You are shooting with a 400D...why don't you upload the full res pic? --AngMoKio (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, the insects do not usually cover the entire frame and there needs to be a large portion of image to be cropped out as empty space. Secondly, you may be aware, I live in Tanzania where the internet speeds are quite mediocre. I upload images with as much resolution as my upload speeds permit me. Larger files usually fail to upload as my connection dies. Typically a 500kb file takes about 10-15mins to upload, sometimes taking upto 30 mins. You see my predicament :( --Muhammad (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not good enough for FP (lighting, detail, size). Might be a VI though. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment When I rotated it into portrait format it looks nice, too --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah but for the sake of reality, I did not rotate; ;) --Muhammad (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral would support at higher resolution, sorry --ianaré (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Alvesgaspar -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support I still find this detailed and I don't see anything wrong with the lighting. Maedin\talk 21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support by Maedin --Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The eyes are definitely not with a black frame and the natural appearance isn't metalic. The harsh flashlight is at the expense of value. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- The lighting isn't that harsh(I used a diffuser) and it better to have some detail than none at all due to motion blur. --Muhammad (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The best is natural looking light without motionblur
. The max for a flash is 1/200 on your cam but your shutter speed could be much higher - I can reach 1/320 with 400 ISO and f/10 and on that day it was very windy, too. No need for flashlight. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- My picture was taken a few mins before sunset, so unfortunately it was pretty dark and I have never seen the overfly again since then :( --16:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's the bitter reality of macro photographers :-/ --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- My picture was taken a few mins before sunset, so unfortunately it was pretty dark and I have never seen the overfly again since then :( --16:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The best is natural looking light without motionblur
- Oh. That's why I shouldn't be here. Maedin\talk 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- ? I don't understand.--Richard Bartz (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for not being clear! I meant that, as I lack expertise in both the subject matter and in photography, there are times when I should refrain from both commenting and voting, :-) Your comment pointed out the error in mine: that perhaps the lighting isn't ideal. It was my rather obtuse way of showing that I accepted your comments. Maedin\talk 07:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Don't wanted being dogmatic, but sometimes there are important points we shouldn't overlook and must oppose when necessary, what doesn't mean that the image is bad or ugly. As en example: At german FPC which has a big community, there are many users which have the opinion that most of Commons FP's doesn't have any, respectively less EV, which IMO is true for some. Our most important guideline which is the only one in bold letters states: Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others - great :-/ - now comes the stupid schizophrenic part - I love a lot of the images I had to oppose - but the problem is the place (relation to wikipedia) and the imperative FPC project scope. Sad. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for not being clear! I meant that, as I lack expertise in both the subject matter and in photography, there are times when I should refrain from both commenting and voting, :-) Your comment pointed out the error in mine: that perhaps the lighting isn't ideal. It was my rather obtuse way of showing that I accepted your comments. Maedin\talk 07:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- ? I don't understand.--Richard Bartz (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The lighting isn't that harsh(I used a diffuser) and it better to have some detail than none at all due to motion blur. --Muhammad (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Richard Bartz - we have very high standards for macro shots. —kallerna™ 17:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Nothing good comes easy. I will keep eyes open for this one --Muhammad (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
