Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Ariadne merione butterfly.jpg

Ariadne merione
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 18:49:10 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality, lighting, composition. Easily the best image in the article
 * Articles in which this image appears:Ariadne merione
 * Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Noob question. I'm just starting to get interested in photography, so please be nice. This photo's got an incredibly small DOF, right? Does that mean the photographer has done a good job getting most of the butterfly in focus, or that they should have set up the shot more carefully? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article on depth of field may be of interest.  Spencer T♦ C 21:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The short answer is yes, the depth of field is thin, but that is almost unavoidable (sometimes you can focus stack) with macro photography like this. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaadddaaammm, you will notice that most of the butterfly is in focus while the background is out of focus. While short DOF being a limitation, it is also good in this case as it draws the viewers eyes to the butterfly without any distractions in the foreground/background --Muhammad (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, also, that since the plane of focus is a plane, and this butterfly is mostly planar, it was possible to get most of this butterfly in focus despite the narrow DOF.Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose the depth of field is OK. The top of the moth's right wing is a little blurry, but the vast majority of the moth is in crystal clear focus. I object to featured picture status because the specimen is not beautiful. We see here a little brown moth, an LBM. The specimen pictured has chunks missing from both wings.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroomydan (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support a pretty good picture of this butterfly (not moth, you can tell the difference easily by looking at the antennae, amongst other features). This is easily the best picture of this butterfly, and has good encyclopedic value. Although this specimen is not perfect, butterflies are not always perfect in nature, and that fact is in itself encyclopedic value. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, this is not a moth, my mistake. It is a little brown butterfly, with damaged wings.Shroomydan (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: The green of the leaf makes a good color contrast and brings out the subtle patterns in the wings. Not a flashy species but the photo has an elegance to it.--RDBury (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I like the composition, but pixels on subject are borderline; there was a question on commons about it being downsampled, which was never answered. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It more than meets the size requirements for en FPC so pixels being borderline is incorrect. Whether it is downsampled or not should not affect the nature of this discussion --Muhammad (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Pixels on subject is what I said, or, "doesn't leave much room for cropping", as some choose to put it. I can crop it to 1184x746 without it looking wrong, so that's definitely closing in on the limit, and giving a hint as to why you chose a framing that is otherwise uncharacteristic of you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You yourself said the composition is nice. If I had cropped it closer to the subject we wouldn't be left with this composition. --Muhammad (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  talk 21:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)