Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Long nosed weevil.jpg

Long Nosed Weevil



 * Reason:A very high quality image of a Long Nosed Weevil, which IMO is a better illustration of a weevil than the FPC proposed below since it has much better DOF and sharpness.
 * Articles this image appears in: Weevil and Belidae
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 09:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Nice macro.  Spencer T♦C 11:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This species does not belong to the Curculionidae family. You might consider removing the picture from the Curculionidae page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Belidae it is --Fir0002 11:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please let me cite: "Belidae is a family of weevils, called belids or primitive weevils because they have straight antennae, unlike the "true weevils" or Curculionidae which have elbowed antennae." (bold is mine) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I confused "Curculionoidea" with "Curculionidae" --Fir0002 11:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support, preference for Edit 1. Nice, but comes across as slightly overexposed to me. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Edit 1 is a bit better? Unfortunately the white bg isn't as clean as the reduction in exposure brings out the shadows more... --Fir0002 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think Edit 1 improves it slightly. As Noodle snacks says, it does hurt my eyes a bit still. I think its the contrast of dark black on white. Is this a focus blend or just stopped down? Also, are you shooting RAW exclusively these days or a mix of JPEG/RAW? Just curious about the originals you're working with. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is a focus stack - from memory it's about 11 images. I pretty much shoot RAW these days and certainly this was shot in RAW. --Fir0002 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Oppose, Prefer Edit 1. Lots of detail but the white background is unnatural and makes my eyes bleed somewhat. Blown pixels all over the bug in both edits, but oh well, changed my mind again Noodle snacks (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 1 - a lot of blown highlights but also a lot of detail. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-09-24 13:13Z
 * Weak Support Edit 1 - My only pick &mdash; is that a shadow, or a speck on my computer? Blown highlights, annoying shadow underneath feet. &mdash; Sunday   | Speak  22:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A white background, by definition, is pure white - so take it easy on the "blown highlights". Complaining about the white background being represented by 255,255,255 is like complaining that this is underexposed because it has blacks! --Fir0002 06:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick look around with an eye dropper on the bug itself reveals quite a large number of blown pixels on the bug itself, edit or not, hence i am changing my vote. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind sharing some x,y co-ords and relevant offending RGB values? --Fir0002 09:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Attached is a map of the offending pixels in the edit verison which is the lower exposure of the two. The color indicates which channels are clipped. The map was generated by photoshop and poking around with an eyedropper gives identical results. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting how minor the clipping is (it's only happening in one channel) and that it's occurring on white hairs. And as I'm sure you'd agree, when dealing with white hairs, or for that matter white feathers very minor clipping such as this doesn't affect the image very much. Indeed in terms of photographic accuracy I would again argue that we should call white white and so white hairs (which have no resolvable detail anyway) should be pretty darn close to 255,255,255 --Fir0002 11:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's a very good bug picture. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit1 I don't think this is that easily improvable except maybe to fade the shadows under the head some more. Mfield (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1. I don't think clipping is a significant problem.  White backgrounds do sometimes make for uncomfortable viewing, but the level of detail and depth of focus is too good not to feature this.--ragesoss (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 10:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)