Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Letheria vulpina 2

Letharia vulpina

 * Reason: High quality, with fantastic contrast and colours. Looks great at high resolution, and is highly encyclopedic as a great illustration of a specific species. Most of the objections in the previous nomination should be addressed by this crop.
 * Articles this image appears in:Letharia vulpina (current version will be replaced if promoted)
 * Creator:Jason Hollinger


 * Support as nominator. Thanks to J Milburn for the first nomination, which is mostly copied here. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Has anything changed between this and the previous nomination except a crop? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrast stretch, which really didn't have much effect on this image. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the un-cropped version is a candidate at VPC. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 13:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - most of the opposes of the last nom had to do with things now cropped out. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The crop still doesn't address Mfield's oppose from last time: "suffering from some pretty unpleasant halation and chromatic abberation, especially on the branch and the bits of the fungus/lichen itself that are on the edge of the DoF. Either way it is distracting. At F8 on a Casio EX-Z1080 I am not sure whether it is purely the lens or if it is compounded by diffraction on a sensor that small. It is obviously not well suited to plant photography at this distance/magnification though."  Spencer T♦C 22:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I've not yet been able to see that flaw, maybe due to the technical language used by Mfield. Where is it? I understand the first part of the comment is about haloes, but I don't see any. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Halation is blurring of light around the out of focus areas - it causes that vaseline on the lens look, where the out of focus areas themselves blur into the in focus areas so you don't get a clear delineation. It is what you can see where the out of focus background seems to melt into the edges of the plant itself and most notbly the branch at the bottom (which is itself out of DoF, but not anywhere near as much). I think the bit on the branch is more acceptable than the soft focus result on the top extremities of the plant, being the subject. At any rate halation is very unpleasing to the eye - it is commonly found in primes like cheap F1.8 primes wide open but I would imagine that the cheap lenses in P&S cameras exhibit a lot of it, its just that normally they aren't operating at such wide apertures and narrow dof and the effects are less often observable. Mfield (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not knowing the definition of halation either, I decided to look it up, but your description of it doesn't seem to match what I've found from other sources. Essentially a number of them describe halation as specifically being an issue of the emulsion used in film (not digital). (Source 1, Source 2 and Anti-halation backing). That said, I understand the issue you're describing and I have seen it on my cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens... I guess the thing is, it might not technically be halation? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The lens effect I am describing is quite separate from film halation, but it is the only term I have ever heard used to describe the out of focus smearing at wide apertures as I and you describe. Here a and section 2 of hereare references which link it - incorrectly or not - to axial chromatic abberation. Mfield (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Halation/inadequate DOF, per my comments above and on original nom. Mfield (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I am the original nominator, and I maintain that this is an excellent and striking illustration of the species. The tightened crop has improved the image (especially when viewed as a thumbnail) and I have replaced it in the article. J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose for inadequate depth of field to capture the subject. Wronkiew (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, mainly for DOF.--ragesoss (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)