Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Flower spider with moth02.jpg

Flower spider with moth

 * Reason:Technically high quality and plenty of EV with the spider clearly shown along with it's prey.
 * Articles this image appears in:Crab spider and Diaea
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Support Poor exposure and DOF, slight skew to green with regards to WB Capital photographer (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol - I can't help thinking that your monitor might be at fault :P --Fir0002 08:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the histograms, I'd say that if it is skewed, it's skewed towards red! --Janke | Talk 15:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty natural in terms of WB to me. You can't look at a histogram of a scene like this to determine the white balance anyway, though, as there is nothing obviously neutral in the image to get a reading off. It only works well if the entire frame is lit with the same light AND there is a natural balance of colours in the scene to begin with. Capital Photographer's inability to see issues with colour balance and subtle detail has been demonstrated before. Not to single him out, but it does seem to be a recurring thing and I suspect his monitor. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that I said if... ;-) Seriously, the whitest whites lean towards red, not green. I agree it looks natural, so don't change anything. --Janke | Talk 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this is nature, and the moth, underside of jonquil and the spider abdomen were all creamy whites, not white white. So a lean towards reds in the "whitest whites" is to be expected. And yeah I obviously agree that the WB is natural :) --Fir0002 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have now checked it using 5 displays, 3LCD and 2 CRT, slight green skew in the wings. I should add that one of the most important things when judging colour integrity is your environment, the room and your computer desktop. If you have strong colours around you, it can desensitise you to those colours when viewing an image. Hence, many photographers and graphic artists have neutral grey desktops and subdued office colour schemes... as I do. Just saying, there is more to colour bias than the calibration of a display. I should also point out my main display is SWOT certified and calibrated monthly, so I feel it is as accurate on a technical level as possible. Given the colour fault seems to be visible only on certain high end devices, I will change my vote to support. It is a fine image in any case. I would like to see more images from fir like his photo that is today's feature image of a bird in flight. Capital photographer (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm that's interesting what you say about graphic artists and subdued environments, because I'd have thought creating an image which looks good in a typical environment would be of more value then one which only looks correct in a grey environment? Because it's not likely that the target audience will be viewing the product in such a controlled environment... Anyway glad you like the flycatcher shot, you might also like this --Fir0002 06:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely honestly though, it may be Capital Photographer's eyes at fault rather than his many calibrated monitors. Again, I'm not trying to publicly crucify him, just raising the issue. One example was the Trevi Fountain image, where he could not see the blue tinge in his edit, even when it was pointed out to him. In this case, it wasn't a matter of which monitor was more accurately calibrated - using an eye dropper on the plaque proved that there was a blue tinge, because there was more B luminance than R and G. It could be argued that a well calibrated monitor muted the blues, but they should still have been visible, I think. Anyway, just food for thought really. Colour accuracy is such a complex thing and I'm sure we pixel peep far more than we need to at times. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original EV Muhammad (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Either. The DOF is great enough to allow for significant detail. Nautica Shad  es  02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Original. The original makes it much easier to tell what is going on.Dwayne Reed (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Orogina Cacophony (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original. Very good macro, could do with more DOF but so could just about every macro shot in existance. You've done well to keep everything important in the plane of focus though. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

-- M w w 1 1 3    (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)