Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Central Heterochromia

Central Heterochromia
Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2010 at 17:44:53 (UTC)
 * Reason:Sometimes, yourself is the best illustration. I have central heterochromia; The camera I got for Christmas is fairly good, I thought, why not?
 * Articles in which this image appears:Heterochromia (replaced a similar, but much lower-resolution image)
 * FP category for this image:I'd probably say Featured_pictures/Sciences/Biology
 * Creator:Adam Cuerden
 * Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest a little brighter and cropped a little closer. Greg L (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Greg L's suggestions.-- mcshadypl T C  23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 (or Edit 1) Though I would prefer a bit brighter yet, I can support this. I am certainly impressed with the sharpness. And the choice of the eye to use looks like it is a median example (rather than the über exaggerations one might see in medical books). Greg L (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect brighter would be unrealistic - eyeballs aren't pure white, after all. =) I have to admit, getting it this sharp was interesting - I took about a hundred photos, then selected the best. Getting the lighting right was the hard part - I wanted minimal reflections, but there had to be enough light to illuminate the eye clearly. Finally ended up using the flash, but with my finger over part of the flash. On the image page, I describe my [failed] battle with my nose, which you can see a bit of a reflection of, but which, short of matte black facial paint, I think is unavoidable. =)Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there wasn’t all that much room for brightening it. Still, I pushed & spread the histogram out to use the available space without blowing out any highlights. It’s another one to consider. I support either Edit 1 or Edit 2, with a preference for the latter. And, BTW, all that effort (a hundred shots) to get the focus certainly explains why it’s so darn sharp. Nice, nice work. It certainly deserves FP status, IMO. Greg L (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They were fairly quick - I wasn't really paying attention to the time, but I think it took an hour or two, all told, mostly in futzing about to try and figure out what worked and what didn't. It was quicker than most of my restoration work, though, of course, I had excellent control of the subject, which was also readily at hand, neither of which I believe is normally the case with photographic FPs. =)  More on topic, Support Edit 2, although I still Support original or Edit 1. I prefer the wider crop, but can also see how the tighter one may be more useful for the articles it's in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Stands out from the ubiquitous eye photos around here, and very nicely illustrates the concept. I have this in my own eyes and had no clue what it was called until 2 minutes ago.  I like it when Wikipedia does that.  --Aiyizo (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Going to throw my support in here, looks a little freaky a big eye, but as eyes goes, it's a nice picture of one. — raeky  T  00:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's partially freaky because the eye is so wide open: That's rarely seen except in moments of anger or fear. Unfortunately, it's kind of necessary for a picture like this =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support any, pref edit 2. Good work. I'll also note that I have this same condition, unbeknownst to me until this nom :)  Jujutacular  T · C 04:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support prefer edit 2. Well captured, good EV --Muhammad (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'm sorry, but I find this picture rather unpleasant. The prominent blood vessels are not typical of many eyes, and the wide-open look is unnecessary and uncomfortable to look at.  I like eyes and have absorbed time with Flickr browsing in the past, and have witnessed many, many, many eye shots superior to this.  We have a sectoral heterochromia photo here on WP that shows the eye does not need to be wide open: File:Sectoral_heterochromia.jpg.  Though not freely licensed, here's an example of heterochromia looking gorgeous, not frightening: .  I don't argue the image's value (and the central heterochromia is great), but this is not FP to me.  I also think the crop is too cramped and the eyebrow hair makes both versions appear "messy" and cluttered.   Mae din\ talk 18:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)