Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blue Bottle Fly

Blue Bottle Fly

 * Reason:Self-nomination.
 * Articles this image appears in:Blue bottle fly, Blow-fly
 * Creator:KirinX


 * Support as nominator &mdash; KirinX 04:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * weak oppose something is off about it - like the original was quite blurry and then a radical unsharp mask was applied. Debivort 07:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I can understand where you're coming from, there's only a minimal USM applied here. Though with the bark being out of the DOF (including the fly's legs), I can see that confusing the eye. -- KirinX 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose To me it looks like some motion unsharpness on the wings - there appears to be closely spaced double highlights. --Janke | Talk 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose It looks kind of blurry. 8thstar 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I love the background style but it has affected the subject of the image... its a shame because this could have been a decent pic -- Ch ild zy ( Talk 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Wonderfull macro picture in my opinion, the above requirements are extremely difficult to the point of impossible to achieve with such a small subject. I'd be very happy to see this on the front page and I'm sure it would complement several articles very well. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I get the feeling this one ain't gonna pass though.  According to FPC standards these days, I guess I just have to freeze time and the wind when I take pictures or really catch the spirit of a dead insect, that's all. -- KirinX 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I do appreciate that macro shots can be difficult, I have to add that it shouldn't be too much to ask that the photo be sharp and not out of focus, motion blurred etc. I can't imagine that wind played the major factor in the lack of sharpness in this photo. Its far more likely to be hand shake or simply not being in focus properly. It also looks very 'plasticy', as if it has had overly strong noise reduction applied. There is almost no texture on the fly or the background. I have to say that I don't believe that its FPC standards that are unrealistically high, its that this image simply has uncorrectable faults that could easily be resolved with a reshoot and some patience. I've taken plenty of shots like this. I just kept shooting until I got a better one. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I should point you at that ol' sarcasm tag at the end of my rant... ;) &mdash; I do believe in hard work and patience (I'm usually too patient), but in this case, this was the best I got due to the little sucker flying away right when I got the focus and exposure close to perfect. Truth be told, until I 'feel out' the FPC criteria, I'm gonna keep submitting things that aren't completely perfect but which I still believe might just pass. And all the while, I'll be getting better. It is my goal to be considered alongside users such as Fir or yourself as Wikipedia's best. -- KirinX 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An admirable aspiration, to say the lest. I wish you the very best in your endeavors, and many good exposures! --Janke | Talk 04:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 04:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)