Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Birth Gulf Fritillary.jpg

Rebirth of Gulf Fritillary
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2014  at 06:32:36 (UTC)
 * Reason:Image shows clear detail of Gulf fritillary and its Chrysalis. Useful and educational
 * Articles in which this image appears:Gulf fritillary
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
 * Creator:Gwillhickers


 * Support as nominator – Gwillhickers (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Difficult shot, but this has a distracting background and what appears to be posterization. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re:Posterization. The underside of the wings of the Fritillary are very opaque, blotch-like and almost reflective in appearance, in real life. Is this what you're referring to? Re:Background. I could crop some of the background, esp the big leaf to the left. Would this help? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That would help, but there is still too much DOF for the butterfly and chrysalis to really pop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I like the photo, but the leaf is occupying nearly a third of the image, makes it a bit distracting... ///Euro Car  GT  23:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The leaf is a bit much I suppose. I could crop the leaf and upgrade the image, if this is permissible. Here is the upgraded image-- Would using this image involve a renomination?
 * Not sure what you mean by 'DOF', I'm assuming you're referring to the background, which overall is not nearly as bright as the butterfly at center. I don't quite see the dim background, leaves, as anything distracting -- ie. just leaves and a faded piece of wood. See the cropped version. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * DOF = depth of field. If you compare this with, say, Jkadavoor's shots (another), the background is out of focus, allowing the butterfly to be in focus and the center of attention. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, there's your problem. You'd want a camera that can adjust the depth of field, rather than trying to get everything sharp. I used a Canon PowerShot for 5 years before upgrading, and let me tell you, it's a lot easier to get better shots when you go with even an entry-level DSLR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When my budget allows I'll have to buy a more capable photo-box. The Fuji was my first camera years ago, it was dropped one too many times and now it's history. -- I just upgraded the nominated photo with a cropped version of this same image, assuming there are no policy or other issues here. Will revert and renominate if required. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problems with changing with an alt, AFAIK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I hate to oppose this one because I like the moment, but the photo has noise and separation problems. The sharpness is not perfect either. --Ebertakis (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 13:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)