Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bombyliid on Bellevalia 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Bombyliid on Bellevalia 1.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Bombyliid fly pollinating Bellevalia flexuosa. All by Gidip. Nomination was withdrawn and restored after three days. --Gidip (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Gidip (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutral To me great compo, but bokeh is not pretty and the light is low (though I am an adept of low light pictures...)--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Lacks contrast. Point of view does not allow for a visual understanding of the subject, hiding important morphological aspects. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)- Oppose As Tomas and not identified and a bit noisy. พ.s. 05:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Temporary Oppose Should be identified first. • Richard • [®] • 09:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment I thought an exact ID is not necessary for FP status. I have already attempted identification and consulted the diptera.info site, but the best ID level possible is tribe Bombyliini. Better ID requires capturing the insect or at least seeing the wing venation. Regarding the lighting problem - is this something that can be fixed? Gidip (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Have you taken the picture in RAW mode? • Richard • [®] • 11:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Gidip (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Then it should be no problem to do a new more comprehensive RAW development. For me it looks slightly underexposed. • Richard • [®] • 14:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Richard, I uploaded a new version. I was away for a few days... Gidip (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Gidi, that's not the correct way to start a new vote. You should open it in a new page, otheerwise the bot will keep closing it. Tomer T (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Richard, I uploaded a new version. I was away for a few days... Gidip (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Then it should be no problem to do a new more comprehensive RAW development. For me it looks slightly underexposed. • Richard • [®] • 14:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Gidip (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Have you taken the picture in RAW mode? • Richard • [®] • 11:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
