Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Vanessa January 2008-2.jpg

Red Admiralty Butterfly



 * Reason:A high resolution and good quality illustration of a well known butterfly in its natural environment, comparing favourably with the existing pictures
 * Articles this image appears in:Vanessa atalanta
 * Creator:Joaquim Alves Gaspar


 * Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support either. They're both good, but I think there's a little more detail in the first image. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-01-30 13:57Z
 * Support original --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Original Wow! Excellent picture! You can see every single detail on his wing! Clegs (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original. Durova Charge! 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Original, [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Weak Oppose Alternative. Gonna buck the trend here - the original is badly oversharpend with an unappealing background. The alternative is better in that the oversharpening isn't as bad but it now lacks definition; also composition could be better in that the low angle results in too much of the butterfly being obscured by the leaf without much gain IMO. Sorry but the insect bar is fairly high... --Fir0002 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose; Fir, are you sure that the original is a victim of sharpening? I thought that the picture was too blurred to match up to Featured Picture standard. I mean, if you were to compare this image with this one, you might go, "Wow, a beetle." and "Pfft, a butterfly.". This image was well-shot, but it just doesn't match up. -- Altiris   Helios   Exeunt  07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm pretty much 100% certain it's been oversharpened - you can see this in all the white "flecks" in contrasty edges. It isn't blurred per se but lacks definition (for want of a better word) - meaning that a blurry photo has been heavily sharpened in some kind of software gaining little or nothing in terms of detail a lot of oversharpening artefacts. --Fir0002 11:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, prefer original. Background of original is just fine. Interesting to have the underside visible for a change. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ..."Interesting to have the underside visible for a change"??! Uh you might want to revise that considering more than half of the current butterfly FP's show the underside: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 --Fir0002 11:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Outstretched, baby, outstretched. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original. Good enough quality, enc. --Janke | Talk 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose both both not sharp enough. The lightning of the first is not perfect, too. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 15:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)