Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Young grasshopper on grass stalk03.jpg

Nymphal grasshopper
High quality macro shot of a nymphal short horn grasshopper on a grass stalk. And no this isn't a studio shot, but down "in the field"; the excellent isolation was acheived since it is a very small insect (about 17mm) and so focus point drop off is very rapid.
 * Support Either Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support 1 very nice shot fir! --⁪froth T 07:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original Great shot, but why is alternative slightly more vivid than original? --antilivedT 07:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Slightly different angle and hence slightly differnt background. Not sure entirely but the alternative I think is the grass closest to the blade I was shooting the grasshopper on (close to the river I was shooting near and hence green) and the other one is either the more distant (less green) grass or the grass tops --Fir0002 08:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Either Another great shot from fir0002, well done! --vineeth 07:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support alternative and Neutral for the original. The original has DOF/focus issues dispite being a slightly better composition. The alterative is a little sharper. Diliff  | (Talk)
 * Support Alternative Better DOF, and the background color is more contrasting with the grasshopper. --DonES 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative I agree the alternate is better. Very good picture overall :) --Tobyw87 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support alternative, this is another one for the books :D. Way to go Fir. Arjun  19:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment/question - if the seagulls need a species ID, then so too, I would suppose, does this image... I'm ready to support it on technical merits though. Debivort 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose - no specied identification (and no response to my comment - Fir is too busy?) Debivort 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support alternative conditional, based on Debivort above. The original's background isn't as good, and the body seems a little too bright, when compared to the alternative (which is practically flawless). A little more information on the specific critter would be more encyclopedic (goes without saying, eh?) Great photography (as always).-Andrew c 23:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support alternative :-O | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 11:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The alternative is not used in any article. Why is a pic that is not used in any article even nominated here? This is like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. FPC is not the place to select the pictures for articles. The pictures should have proven themselves in the articles and then be nominated. Anyway, not really much of a difference here, but this is all part of the FPC failed again thingie. --Dschwen 14:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They are essentially identical. I see no harm in taking the original image from the article and putting in the alternative one if it happens to be promoted. mstroeck 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support whichever, still great pictures. --Dschwen 14:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. He looks dangerous. - Darwinek 14:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support alternative Very nice picture. The alternative is nicer. Althepal 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)