Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Head of dragonfly

Head of dragonfly

 * Reason:High quality picture illustrating well the various parts of the head of a living dragonfly. The captions add encyclopaedic value to the image.
 * Proposed caption:Head of a living female dragonfly of the species Sympetrum fonscolombei, where the compound eyes are the most striking element. Captions with the names of the various parts of the head are shown in he image file.
 * Articles this image appears in:Compound eye, Dragonfly, Red-veined darter
 * Creator:Joaquim Alves Gaspar

Oppose We already have a featured picture of a dragonfly's compound eyes which IMO thanks to better sharpness shows the compound eyes much better. --Fir0002 05:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator Alvesgaspar 00:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Info - But this is a depiction of the whole head, not of the compound eyes only. Alvesgaspar 09:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why is the eye so blurry, especially on the lower half? Is it simply a trick of light that the lines can't be seen, or what? I'm not saying it's a problem with the photograph, it's just curious. --Golbez 09:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea but this has happened with all my dragonfly pictures of this species. I supoose it has something to do with the fine strutcture of the lower part of the eye, which is not resolved by the sensor. Alvesgaspar 09:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose original. The image appears to have poor quality post-processing - is it noise reduction? The image appears very clean but there seems to be a sort of jagged posterization most noticable on the legs but visible across the image. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not the result of post-processing, the "painted-like" parts already appear in the raw file. Alvesgaspar 11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange. I agree with Dschwen that it might be in camera noise reduction (don't use it - it isn't necessary. There are better post-processing noise reduction tools available!) then. Still a good image for use in the article, but it has quality issues. Have you noticed the same effect in other images? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what it is, but it looks similar to the effects of a median filter to me. thegreen J      Are you green?  01:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not a bad macro but we have the same subject already featured at better quality.--Svetovid 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the DOF/resolution/smoothing effect. Maybe it is in-camera noise reduction? --Dschwen 14:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Still a cool shot, though. --Peter 14:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose; the picture that Fir0002 refers to is better, methinks. Only thing this one has going for it might be its superior colorfulness. Unschool 01:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Before the nomination is closed with no glory there is something I have to say: the comparison with Fir0002's picture is not fair. First because this is a depiction of the whole head, taken from a different angle, and not just of the eyes; and secondly because the pic was taken "in the wild", with wind and direct sunlight, to a very alive and nervous animal. Under this conditions the tripode is useless because we have to approach very closely to a moving subject in order to get the maximum magnification. - Alvesgaspar 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 09:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)