Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hoverfly03 crop.jpg

Hoverfly

 * Support Self Nom --Fir0002 04:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral Oppose. Nice pic. But currently not in any article, and the hoverfly is a bit edge on. --Dschwen 07:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather go with oppose, see my comments further down. The other pic is just better. --Dschwen 18:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Another slice of amazingness from Fir0002. &mdash;Vanderdecken&there4; &int;  &xi;  &phi;   09:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It is in the article Flower-fly. Sharp image and looks like it was difficult to capture.-- Dakota ~  ε  09:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this picture adds a lot more to the flower-fly article [[Image:Hoverfly.jpg|30px]] as the actual fly occupies a lot more of the frame and is shown from a better angle. --Dschwen 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is striking but is it nominated? Would support if nominated.-- Dakota ~  ε  01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone just nominated it on commons. But in any case, having a superior picture is a pretty good reason to oppose this nomination. --Dschwen 12:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Nice clear pic, and an interesting one at that! --Ali K 10:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Refreshing. enochlau (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When viewed full size, looks like it has been processed and sharpened into oblivion. There are strong haloes around some of the edges and it appears overly washed out and unnatural. The flower itself appears posterized and lacking in texture, but it could be due to being out of focus. I'm not considering nominating it right now, but I feel I have a better image here --> . Diliff  | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Washed Out? I don't quite follow you there - it seems to me as perfectly saturated. I also fail to see any haloes, let alone "strong" haloes. There is a little compression where there is fine hairs, but that is what you get with jpeg. Also with all due respect I think your photo is a little washed out and unsharp. --Fir0002 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, can you see that the yellow part of the flower lacks definition and seems posterized? The sides of it have strange highlights. They don't look like genuine highlights as they're sort of pale, so I don't know what they are. I can only guess that it is posterization anyway. We're obviously not on the same page here as I think my image looks more balanced and yours looks washed out (when I said that, I was refering to the flower - the fly is overly contrasty actually, so I guess I should have been specific). Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I honestly don't see any posterized elements. Maybe you could uploaded a picture with a circle around it? --Fir0002 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Doesn't show the fly from a good angle - wings are totally edge-on. --Janke | Talk 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well personally I think that is one of the strong points. So many photos of hoverfly's are top down because that is pretty easy (couple examples from me {not including the rest on the article) 1, 2, 3,  4). And getting a shot that is side on is quite unusual and I find more interesting --Fir0002 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. I prefer Image:Hoverfly.jpg, Image:Flower fly Victoria, Australia Oct 2003.jpg or this staring hoverfly --Wikimol 00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would much rather a better view of the fly, either from the top or slightly angled. This version misses vital markings on the back of the fly. The background is disturbing. The fly doesn't take up enough of the frame, if it were cropped to just include the fly, it would be far too small for FP. --liquidGhoul 12:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nice perspective. Randyoo 09:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 08:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

