Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Ampulex compressa.jpg

Emerald cockroach wasp

 * Reason:IMO, wasps are much harder to photograph than bees and flies as they hardly stay in one place for a long time. I found this wasp near a cockroach and thus it was more cooperative. This picture is of good quality and good EV. The foreground may be distracting to some, but it is unavoidable. The image is the only decent image wiki has of any member of the family, genus and species of the wasp! The wasp was on a cement sprayed wall looking down.
 * Articles this image appears in:Emerald cockroach wasp, Spheciformes, Ampulicidae, Ampulex
 * Creator:Muhammad

|                                                                           \|/                                                                           V
 * Support as nominator, Original, Edit1, Edit 2 in order of preference --Muhammad (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support Support Edit 1. Although the DOF and composition are not ideal, the difficulty of the shot and it's EV makes me inclined to support it. The thing that is actually most distracting to me is the orientation of the ground. Looking at the photo I have no idea which way is up :P Kaldari (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The wasp is looking down at an angle. Does that explain anything? --Muhammad (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So what's the surface it's on? --jjron (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I incorrectly assumed everybody would know what the wasp was on. In Tanzania, some walls are sprayed with cement and when the cement hardens there are these small heaps of accumulated cement. I am not sure why the walls are sprayed, maybe its a design or maybe to stop robbers from climbing over them. The wasp was found on such a wall, looking down. --Muhammad (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen that type of surface, though it's not that common in these parts - that was probably one of several guesses I would have made as to what the surface was :-). A type of cement rendering I spose. So the next (dumb) question is, was the wall on this angle, or was it vertical as you'd expect? And if vertical, why is the image therefore at this angle? --jjron (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I may have leaned slightly to keep away from the paralyzed cockroach and hence the tilt. Not a dumb question at all :) Will upload a rotated version later tonight --Muhammad (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Though good enc., the DOF is too shallow, and the tilt of the image is somewhat bothersome.  Spencer T♦C 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the tilt, this was how the wasp was. I can upload a straightened out version but ts does not not look as interesting. Regarding the DOF, most of the wasps body parts are in good focus, including the antennas. Having the wall in focus is impossible without losing out on something else. --Muhammad (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The tilt is understandable, so that's why my oppose is weak. I still think the DOF could be big enough so that the whole subject is in focus (i.e., the legs).  Spencer T♦C 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, a rotate and a small crop may look better...some test previews on my computer look a bit better.  Spencer T♦C 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 1.  Spencer T♦C 02:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Shallow DOF terribly distracts.  Zoo Fari  01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support any, but preference for original. The DOF is very much normal for a macro shot and the composition is ideal to make the most of the DOF, so I have no complaints. I can't make my mind up about whether the tilt is ideal or not. I have to admit that it does make it a bit harder to view the wasp from this angle, and I don't know whether you can rotate it without cropping out the animal itself, but I support it either way. Between yourself, Fir0002 and Macro Freak, you have lifted the macro bar very high. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Provisional Support: I'd like to see this rotated to the left 90°.  Do you think that will improve it?  I tried it and I thought it looked much better and less "bothersome".   Mae din \talk 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1: Just right with that rotation. This one doesn't give me vertigo like the original does!   Mae din \talk 19:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - In contrast to some others I like the DOF effect and angle. Its a good macro with everything possible (and important) in focus. Composition and the dull background make the subject pop out - great shot - Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have uploaded a rotated version. Some of the tilt is still there which I can remove at the expense of even more background and foreground being lost. --Muhammad (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The cropped version is much better, but it gives the false impression that the subject is on level ground. Should it be rotated 90˚ so the cockroach wasp appears to be on a wall like it really was, or is that too distracting?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For encyclopedic reasons, I don't think it makes much of a difference. The wasp can be found on level ground as in the edit and vertically as in the original. --Muhammad (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Original, Strong Oppose Edit 1 I think the EV is high enough that the somewhat distracting angle and DOF are acceptable. I think the edit is inappropriate manipulation. Maybe it's just because I've seen the original, but the wasp in the edit looks odd on a horizontal surface. I much prefer to see the wasp as the photographer did. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But you're not - the photographer has already said this was on a basically vertical surface, but he had to lean to take the photo. As HereToHelp suggests, I wouldn't mind seeing a vertical edit as well (was going to dump one up myself, but I guess Muhammad may as well since he's got the source). --jjron (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call rotating and cropping an image as inappropriate. For encyclopedic purposes, both orientations have similar value. --Muhammad (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit 2 Uploaded. Got named a bit funny but upload speed is too slow to do it again :)--Muhammad (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can sympathise, though seemingly few others here can. Indeed I have suffered the dreaded 'jpg.jpg' mistake on uploading alts in the past myself, and have also just left them. :-) --jjron (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've managed to do the Image:Image: a couple of times, actually, after copying the full image name when uploading an edit. ;-) They can be renamed by an admin on Commons though, from memory, so you don't have to upload a new version. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a template that has to be used after another correctly named version is uploaded so that the admin can delete the incorrectly named. At least that's what I always do --Muhammad (talk)  11:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support any Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose others. Has enough detail on the wasp, and I rather like the angle and foreground/background effect.--ragesoss (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original. Let's stick with the convention that the direction of gravity is down. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)