Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Centruroides suffusus 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Centruroides suffusus 1.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2008 at 21:33:07
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Question This guy is dead, isn't it ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- It´s still alive, waiting for tomorrow´s photo shoot. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Neutral -- I like the white background and the position of the scorpion, but in full resolution, the quality is not as good as it could be. Parts of the scorpion are out of focus and theres some noise Manuel R. (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the white backgrounds. --Digon3 talk 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Good picture of a common (dead) scorpion with average DOF. As it is still around, you might take another picture, but please remove the dust and lint first. On a different note, the id might be wrong as C. suffusus (the Durango scorpion) has pale sides and only occurs in Durango province. The colour hints at C. vitattus but even then, although it is a wider spread animal, the place where you found it stays a bit problematic. All in all, a clean shoot of a properly identified (even dead) animal has surely FP potential. BTW, lighting is very good. Lycaon (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Lycaon, I am not too keen on photographing dead fish in a perilous air-conditioned lab nor taking zoo pictures with bogus geolocations. If I say here that the bug is alive, it is. Here is another picture of the model and a little brother (who did die) #REDIRECT Image:Centruroides suffusus 2.jpg. As far as the ID, a Bug-o-logist friend tentatively identifies it between a suffussus or a infamatus infamatus or infamatus ornatus. The problem is that they are very small. The dust? Well, I sure ain´t going to try to brush it off. :o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe a gentle shot of compressed air? --J.smith (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Lycaon, I am not too keen on photographing dead fish in a perilous air-conditioned lab nor taking zoo pictures with bogus geolocations. If I say here that the bug is alive, it is. Here is another picture of the model and a little brother (who did die) #REDIRECT Image:Centruroides suffusus 2.jpg. As far as the ID, a Bug-o-logist friend tentatively identifies it between a suffussus or a infamatus infamatus or infamatus ornatus. The problem is that they are very small. The dust? Well, I sure ain´t going to try to brush it off. :o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm with Lycaon. For a studio shot it could and should have a much better quality and DOF (focus bracketing?). I don't like white backgrounds, but that is a minor remark. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Of course you are with Lycaon! Birds of a feather flock together! I am much more amused than surprised. What makes you assume that it is a studio shot? Just so you know, the critter was photographed with daylight in the shade, in a plastic ice cream container... pretty much in its natural habitat, my back patio. Perhaps for a photo critic you could and should have much better quality in your critiques, substantiated by insightful arguments, not blanket statements that say nothing. Nice to see you again too! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Tomas! I see that you are well and sound. And with the usual difficulty in accepting criticism... Nothing new, really. I wish we have fun together and find new talents here! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the warm welcome Alvesgaspar!!! Funny thing about criticism. I love criticism! I truly do! Problem around here is that there is no criticism. I am a dictionary freak, and criticism is rave; appraisal, assessment, evaluation; analysis, examination, study. There is very, very little of that. What there is a lot of, however, is a lot of self delusion about knowing about photography. But it is ok though, this effort is still worth it, there is redeeming value in here. It is a fact of life that everything has good and bad, so we just have to accommodate for that. Zen says that in order for there to be short, there must be long, for there to be heavy there must be light, so I guess here in order to have wonderful, fun people like me there must exist the opposite. What's there to do but accept reality?? ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, I wish I could cope with your gongoristic style and deep, genuine modesty... But no, the only thing I have to offer in exchange is a little photographic experience, hardly conquered througout all these long years.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Alvesgaspar, I can see that you hardly have conquered little photographic experience. But it is ok, time is a great and patient teacher, just stick with it and some day it will come to you. ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, maybe I'm luckier than you ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Probably... they say ignorance is bliss. ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, maybe I'm luckier than you ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Alvesgaspar, I can see that you hardly have conquered little photographic experience. But it is ok, time is a great and patient teacher, just stick with it and some day it will come to you. ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, I wish I could cope with your gongoristic style and deep, genuine modesty... But no, the only thing I have to offer in exchange is a little photographic experience, hardly conquered througout all these long years.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the warm welcome Alvesgaspar!!! Funny thing about criticism. I love criticism! I truly do! Problem around here is that there is no criticism. I am a dictionary freak, and criticism is rave; appraisal, assessment, evaluation; analysis, examination, study. There is very, very little of that. What there is a lot of, however, is a lot of self delusion about knowing about photography. But it is ok though, this effort is still worth it, there is redeeming value in here. It is a fact of life that everything has good and bad, so we just have to accommodate for that. Zen says that in order for there to be short, there must be long, for there to be heavy there must be light, so I guess here in order to have wonderful, fun people like me there must exist the opposite. What's there to do but accept reality?? ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Tomas! I see that you are well and sound. And with the usual difficulty in accepting criticism... Nothing new, really. I wish we have fun together and find new talents here! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Of course you are with Lycaon! Birds of a feather flock together! I am much more amused than surprised. What makes you assume that it is a studio shot? Just so you know, the critter was photographed with daylight in the shade, in a plastic ice cream container... pretty much in its natural habitat, my back patio. Perhaps for a photo critic you could and should have much better quality in your critiques, substantiated by insightful arguments, not blanket statements that say nothing. Nice to see you again too! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Uuhm, no --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, this is a critique I would like to hear. I am not a bug photographer so I don't really have all the fine distinctions of the art. I appreciate the quality of your work, and have followed it since your makro freak days. A few opinions as to why not would be a great lesson for all, or at least to me. I take it by your reply that you evaluated the picture, so I really want to know your thoughts. Besides, you wont need a lot of words, your elocuence is evident!!! Cheers! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- It looks sad/jailed. Better - a positive picture in his nat. env.
(with a majestical angle from beneath, maybe)--Richard Bartz (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- It looks sad/jailed. Better - a positive picture in his nat. env.
- In all seriousness, this is a critique I would like to hear. I am not a bug photographer so I don't really have all the fine distinctions of the art. I appreciate the quality of your work, and have followed it since your makro freak days. A few opinions as to why not would be a great lesson for all, or at least to me. I take it by your reply that you evaluated the picture, so I really want to know your thoughts. Besides, you wont need a lot of words, your elocuence is evident!!! Cheers! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
