Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catopsilia pomona by kadavoor.JPG

File:Catopsilia pomona by kadavoor.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 06:23:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Catopsilia pomona by kadavoor.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catopsilia pomona by kadavoor.JPG

•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jkadavoor (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry to say but this picture offers only mediocre composition, quality, light & size. To pick one out: the light is much 2 harsh, look at the legs they are partially overexposed, or the shadow - he has absolutely no tracing or the leaf which looks unappealing because of the disturbing & overexposed reflections. Best regards   • Richard • [®] • 09:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is always a pleasure to read this type of through reviews, even though an opposing one. Jkadavoor (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support --Moonik (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Conditional support - major issues with this image are the harsh lighting, with overexposure on the leaf, and relatively low resolution. Good focus and composition though, and perhaps a FP. Please edit out the distracting white speck I've flagged in the image notes, and I will support.--Claritas (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• The white speck is a piece of spider web. A request is raised in the 'Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop' for these changes. Thanks for the suggestions. Jkadavoor (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• They made an attempt (File:Catopsilia_pomona_by_kadavoor_edit.png); please check it too. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Would happily support a version with the overexposure on legs reduced: it's important to show the most details possible (e.g., you certainly know that some species have patterns that differentiate males from females on the front legs). --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Could you (or anybody) help me on this; I've little knowledge in edits. The strong sunlight of Asia is always an issue in my works. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Of course I can help you, but only if the original file is not showing 100% blown parts, or at least it holds some info on those apparently white pixels. Sometimes parts seem to be blown but are not. If you send me the original un-edited file, I can see what I can do for you and also try to denoise it to reduce artifacts. I totally understand you with the camera issue. I also have many problems with the unsharp nikkor lenses, and standards are very high with the Canon cameras and lenses around here. But don't give up taking pictures, I would recommend you to use this page to get some awesome feedback as I have got (and actually it's free!), and when you buy a better camera in the future, you'll be an ace, that's the idea. For now, your contributions are very important. There are more than 10.000 known species of day butterflies, thousands of insects and birds, and so on: we need people like you and Archaeo, Llez, JJ Harrison etc. around here :) Just send me the original file, I'll check it out. Paolo1412@hotmail.com. Regards --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sent Original file to through email. Thank you and thanks all for your kind words. I'm not taking much photos now; but not because of the comments. My last work on Flickr was on 22 Non 2011; after that I only uploaded from the archives. And the plus point is that I'm much active here after that. Hope to get back to the rhythm and will try to find new species in my surroundings soon. Thanks. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Denoised background, and adjusted levels a bit. Sent the file back to your mail. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose because of the quality, which is really not good enough here. Not your fault, but the camera stretches to its limits (?) and the result are strong JPG artifacts (including a loss of details). Lighting could be better, too, as mentioned above, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I definitely need a better camera. :( Not taking any photos now because I lost the enthusiasm with that little toy; just transferring (after uncropping) old works from flickr. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't stop. Your images have been wonderful additions to the Commons. They might not all be FP but they are beautiful and quite valuable as well. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• A new camera (DSLR) would be better, but I agree Saffron Blaze. Don't stop just because of your camera, please :-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose as Richard & kaʁstn --Böhringer (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose As others--Miguel Bugallo 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm afraid I'll have to oppose as per Richard Freedom to share (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Info The image is updated by an edit by Paolo Costa to reduce the jpeg artifacts and overexposure. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Much better. But the general problems are still there and visible, so I retain my vote. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)