Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Emperor-Dragonfly-(8).JPG

File:Emperor-Dragonfly-(8).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2010 at 15:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Emperor-Dragonfly-(8).JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Emperor-Dragonfly-(8).JPG

•  Info created by Ken_Billington - uploaded by Ken_Billington - nominated by Ken_Billington -- Ken Billington (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ken Billington (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose top right wing of the emperor dragonfly is somewhat blurry, and I would like a solid background.--Snaevar (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment -- This is a very difficult shot and we can't expect the same quality standards of a still subject. Let's wait and see the assessment of the macro specialists. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support considering that it is not a still subject. Ggia (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support as a non macro specialist, I like it !--Jebulon (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Quality is good considering the extremely difficult shooting situation. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose In my opinion it really was a very difficult shot. I admire the author for taking such a picture. I think I wouldn't be able to do it. On the other hand, the dificulty of taking a picture does not imply it's great value. It was a difficult shot but the effect isn't strong enough to promote it as a FP. Most of the dragonfly's body is OOF and one wing is covering a part of its thorax and the legs. The head is only partially visible. -- Von.grzanka (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- I have to agree... Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I supported the image.. because the image with the dragonfly flying has high EV. Ggia (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose downsampled. luminance noise of ISO 1000 is still visible in the bokeh (which is rather poor and should be replaced by a solid background). dof could be better for a view from the side (the whole dragonfly should be in focus). please provide information on the equipment you used (besides the camera body) by adding Template:Photo Information. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 00:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Info the lens used was the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L, hope this additional information helps. -- Ken Billington 21:30, 19 December, 2010
•  Oppose The key value of this image is the flight. Unfortunately the quality is not as high as that of the already featured File:Thomas Bresson - Aeshna cyanea-1 (by).JPG. If we didn't have a better example already, I would have suported. Sorry. As others have said, this is a very difficult shot to take, and you certainly have my congratulations. --99of9 (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Info The species photographed by Thomas Bresson was actually "Aeshna cyanea". This image is of the species "Anax imperator". -- Ken Billington 21:30, 19 December, 2010
•  Question Why is the background grey? --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Info The background is the surface of the pond, which was completely out of focus. The subject, however, was well lit by the sunlight, which brought out the colours in good contrast --Ken Billington (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support--MASHAUNIX 17:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)