Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Hermetia illucens Black soldier fly.jpg

Black soldier fly

 * Reason:Good quality, lighting and EV. Replaced a previous, inferior quality image of mine which had been in the article for over a year.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Black soldier fly, Brachycera
 * Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is this one superior to your previous image? Prima facie, I see a little distracting blurred object in the foreground that the other doesn't have. In this one the insect has something at the end (like if it was lighted as a cigar) which might be normal but the other doesn't have.  franklin   21:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The object you refer to in the foreground is just a grain of sand. It hardly blocks any of the fly though. Cigar, I can't say --Muhammad (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The poor guy also needs a shower, it is covered in sand. The thing about a cigar is that the end of the abdomen looks like burned. I am almost sure it is not burned but changing its exoskeleton or something like that. But that makes the previous picture of yours a more generic individual.  franklin   23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But again, why is it you consider this one superior to the other?  franklin   23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got another picture which also shows it covered in sand so I'd say that's pretty normal for them. Personally, I prefer the lighting of this one. If you like that more, I could add it as an alternative. --Muhammad (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asking so much to see if I could identify what you were seeing in the other not as good as this one, and it makes me happy to know that I guessed right. The things about the sand and the strange abdomen might or might not be an issue, that depends on knowing more about that species, which I don't. The blurred spot on the sand is what I find more problematic. Usually blurs help to draw attention to the subject but in this case the blurred spot in the bottom is gathering attention itself. I guess because it is surrounded by a band of sharp elements. I tried a little (and quickly) blurring the rest of the sand (or most of it) and I think it solves this. It has to be blurred quite a bit since that spot is already very blurred. I don't know if that counts as excessive manipulation, but if not I think it would be good to do it. You can also add the other image but if I were you I would ponder whether it is the wining card because otherwise, since both images are good, it can happen that they will compete for the votes and that maybe is not strategically desirable.  franklin   05:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See edit --Muhammad (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Hmmm... can we somehow get this without the red channel blow-out? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I'd rather have blown highlights in the largely out of focus foreground and background than clipped blacks on the insect. The blown areas do not look objectionable. If it is an easy fix I'd fix it. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this one is slightly superior to the older image. Sharpness is a little better. Both have noticable dust spots though, Muhammad! Could you try to clone them out? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Muhammad (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit 1 Uploaded. I applied a blur to part of the foreground, cloned out part of the sand blocking the leg and cloned on part of the leg from another picture I had of the shoot --Muhammad (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find the blurry sand in the forground a little distracting... J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know but it's unavoidable. The subject is at such a position that you can not exclude at least some of the foreground, and at such high magnification, DOF is waay too shallow. Usually for insects perched on leaves, there is no "ground" in the foreground, hence a non-distracting compo --Muhammad (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I know what I'm looking at, I think the edit looks a little fake. I am not opposed to the original, as such. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1-per nominator.  franklin   22:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support (Edit 1) agree with above -- Sabri76' message  08:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din \talk 07:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)