Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Battus philenor

Battus philenor

 * Reason:My first good butterfly picture (unless you count this one). The wings are damaged and the tips are not in focus. Lighting is good although not completely natural looking due to the flash. Encyclopedic value is decent, although other (lower-quality) images of this species/pose exist on Commons. Composition is good.
 * Articles this image appears in:Pipevine swallowtail
 * Creator:Kaldari


 * Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Durova  280 17:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per stunning image. I think the contrast of the various colors really makes this stand out. As such, it adds more to the encyclopedia than a standard image would. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blown highlights. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Better, but still not perfect. EV good enough to make up for lingering issues. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Makeemlighter. MER-C 07:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  bad exposure, not-so-good composition. Blown highlights are not that much of an issue though.  Zoo Fari  05:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Over-exposed.-- TitanOne (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Nice fix.--TitanOne (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Update - I went back to the RAW file and backed off the exposure and contrast so that there aren't any blown highlights now. Load these both in tabs to compare: new old. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can Support now. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Better. MER-C 10:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Very nice set of colors (and obvious EV). - ☩  Damërung   ☩   .  -- 22:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

--Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)