Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Horehound Bug apr07.jpg

Horehound Bug
Taken on a horehound bush, this image has high enc value as it not only illustrates the insect well it also provides a natural setting for the bug. High technical quality compliments this making it a worthy FPC IMO


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 09:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Natural setting and good detail in places, but DOF is an issue (it always is) and there's flash reflection causing slightly blown highlights. In an artificial setting, these problems would be inexcusable; the question is whether the natural setting makes up for the loss of detail. Personally, I'm not really sure.--HereToHelp 13:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Strong points are composition, color, and the natural setting. I much prefer images of flora and fauna in the wild rather than against a piece of white cardstock. Depth of field could be better (what was your aperture setting on this?) and especially on this one I'd be willing to sacrifice a little sharpness for it. The blown area is unfortunate, but acceptable. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't remember offhand, but I believe f/11 or f/13. --Fir0002 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Like HTH said, the centre of the image is blown out. Anything we can do about that? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's truly blown out, nothing can be done to fix that. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-12-03 14:19Z
 * Yeah it's unrecoverable - but really is an area of about 30px such a detracting feature? It's not like those kind of reflections do not exist in real life... --Fir0002 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's slap-bang in the centre of the image. I'm sorry, but that's a considerable fault. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that implies that if it were on the rear end of the insect it'd be OK which doesn't make sense but you're welcome to your opinion. --Fir0002 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Fir - that makes a great deal of sense. That blown highlight is smack dead in the middle of the image, which, given the composition, is where your eyes jump to - the highlight ends up getting more attention then the bug itself, and that's why such a central and strong (it contrasts heavily with the bug's colour...) is so big a detractor. Also, Oppose . --Mad Tinman T C 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either per nom and per Jeff Dahl--Mbz1 19:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Great composition, nice catch in general, just a bit oversharpened for me, and that highlight is right in your face. Probably deserves to be an FP, just not an obvious candidate IMO.--mikaultalk 11:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - that reflection. Another angle of light would probably have helped... --Janke | Talk 10:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've fixed the issue with the reflection. --Fir0002 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1  Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 - I don't know how you did it, but that fixed the problem. Well done. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 14:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original, neutral edit 1 - Beautiful picture, I love the composition with the background colours. But it is too easy to tell that edit 1 is photoshopped. I might support the edit if someone can do it slightly better. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 04:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)