Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Chrysotoxum cautum Richard Bartz.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Chrysotoxum cautum Richard Bartz.jpg, featured
[edit]
Info created by Richard Bartz - uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by D-Kuru --D-Kuru 22:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)- Info: Flies in the Diptera family Syrphidae are commonly known as hoverflies, flower flies, or Syrphid flies. As shown a (Chrysotoxum cautum)
Support --D-Kuru 22:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)- Support--Mbz1 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support --Richard Bartz 22:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Question Richard Bartz' vote counted?
- |Author= Richard Bartz, Munich aka Makro Freak -> two aurhors? --D-Kuru 11:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Flash, composition. --Beyond silence 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)- Support -- Lycaon 06:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good colour, nice details --Thermos 08:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Nice details, but too yellow photo. --Dezidor 14:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)- Neutral Good photo, but not sure that's the best angle, since it leaves out all details of the mouthparts and legs. Adam Cuerden 19:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Bad framing (or crop). I'm with the classical rule. Alvesgaspar 23:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Poromiami 5:26 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice colors. --Atoma 06:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Oversharpened. -- Ram-Man 11:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- QuestionCould you explanin me (and probably many others), what you mean with word oversharpened? And from which did you recognize, that picture is oversharpened? --Karelj 22:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Both the highlights and the small hairs appear oversharpened. The highlights are very bright relative to their surroundings. The pixel to pixel contrast is appears too high. It's hard to put it into words, but it doesn't look natural. Most natural subjects have much smoother transitions from pixel to pixel. The image was processed in photoshop, as per the EXIF information. -- Ram-Man 23:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think, that more than 90% snaps in this section was processed by photoshop or similar programs and I dońt mind. The reason of this pictures is to show visitors of wikipedia, how some subject look like and this is also case of our picture here, I believe. To say, that insect looks annaturally could enthomologist, but that is not case of another of us, isn´t it? --Karelj 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Both the highlights and the small hairs appear oversharpened. The highlights are very bright relative to their surroundings. The pixel to pixel contrast is appears too high. It's hard to put it into words, but it doesn't look natural. Most natural subjects have much smoother transitions from pixel to pixel. The image was processed in photoshop, as per the EXIF information. -- Ram-Man 23:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 16:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice colors. --Bergwolf 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Machiavelli talk 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Good sharpness/colors but very poor composition. The "backside" view is not appealing at all. Should have been taken front on with the insect --Fir0002 www 23:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition and the detail, and I believe the back side is worth watching, too. --Digitaldreamer 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 10:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not very impressive. Too monotone: not enough color contrast. Metoc 19:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 06:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. D-Kuru 17:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
