Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Theretra clotho-Kadavoor-2016-08-29-001.jpg

File:Theretra clotho-Kadavoor-2016-08-29-001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2016 at 12:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Theretra clotho-Kadavoor-2016-08-29-001.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Theretra clotho-Kadavoor-2016-08-29-001.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info Theretra clotho larva. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 12:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jee 12:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Great specimen, head and "tale" are crisp sharp. But the body looks like it wasn't perfectly in focus and it looks like even a bit pixelated. Jeffrey's Image Metadata viewer says also: WARNING: Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile. Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat the colors randomly. --Ivar (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Ivar for your comment. Yes; the focus plane is the center-line of this thick larva (as in my previous larva fp). We'll get some DOF in foreground and background; but may not be enough for a thick subject like this. Another option is to focus one the subject part close to camera; here on the body of the larva. I don't think it is the best way. (Here I used DxO. DxO and Gimp only mark colorspace in EXIF. I had switched to Capture One for new files. I think it is difficult to enforce color space embedding until all major software players choose that way.) Jee 16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• If Jee is ok with it, then I can use EXIFTOOL to insert the relevant profile tonight. I know GIMP can embed colour profiles because I've done it before, but I don't use it often enough to remember, but opening a JPG in GIMP just to insert a profile would be a slightly destructive action wrt image quality. I wish there was a Commons tool we could use. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Colin, here in this case, color-profile already added while I re-processed it in Capture One. Jee 08:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Neutral Thanks for the explanation, but the larva's body is not sharp enough for me. --Ivar (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Meanwhile I had started re-processing the image in Capture One to embed the color profile. This time no down-sampling too. I don't know whether it highlight the focus problem, more; but decided to leave it for a try. Please review once again. @Iifar and Ikan Kekek: . Jee 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Big improvement, pixelation is gone and the body looks sharper now. --Ivar (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for the ping. The caterpillar is larger. I don't see increased clarity, but I was already supporting this because even without pinpoint focus at full size, it's a really cool creature and good enough to feature on the basis of pure fascination plus adequate quality and good composition. But why is it so much bluer now? Is that more like what it actually looked like? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• The first version was a bit warm. I think now this is more natural like my other version. Jee 03:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 19:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support for its doggedly determined longitudinality. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 23:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera