Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:P1150918 Cantharis livida.jpg

File:P1150918 Cantharis livida.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 16:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:P1150918 Cantharis livida.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:P1150918 Cantharis livida.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, definitely! --Aqwis (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, idem ! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support WOW --Cesco77 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lack of detail, noisy. inisheer (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Good composition, bad quality --Muhammad (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per inisheer. -- JovanCormac 06:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures! The magnification is fine but the beetle is nothing than unsharp mush! Sorry. --Leviathan (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Awesome capture. Quality is not so good on full view, but it's still very good. Downsampled to 1700 x 1200 (minimum size) looks perfect. --Lošmi (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, thats the worst argument I´ve read here for a long time! So we take, for example, a little unsharp 40mp (10000x4000) panorama and downsample it to 1700x1200 so it looks perfect?! The loose of quality is uninteristing or what??? Sorry but voting like this is pure nonsense!! Why should we upload the highest possible resolution if you vote by downsampled pictures? Cant understand... --Leviathan (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Leviathan, you said "Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted". Do you think this is a right argument to oppose? --Cesco77 (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • "...wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures!" That was what I've written. And the next sentece tells why I think so. The link to my nomination is only an example. --Leviathan (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • This picture may be "blurry and noisy", but it's not overexposed and its composition is, frankly, a lot better than that of your candidate. --Aqwis (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually it does make a sense. Images for web are usually in resolution of 72 px/inch, and for printing are in 300 px/inch. Thus, size of downsampled image and printed image might look similar. Full resolution of printed image won't be that big as full resolution on the web. That's what I taught. --Lošmi (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 13:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that, if the image was just a little bit better quality, and had just a little bit more details, it would not have been safe for the kids to look at --Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support, in my opinion very good shot --romazur (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose perhaps oversharpened, not convinced about quality inspite of the excellent composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per inisheer. Our FP standard for macros is quite high. --NEURO ^⇌ 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Striking.--— Erin (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)