Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Meadow Argus butterfly

[[Media:Meadow Argus.jpg|Meadow Argus butterfly]]
A nice shot of the Meadow Argus butterfly. I took this in my front yard. It is common to Australia. I perfer the first photo, but I though I'd put both up for a choice.
 * Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support either but prefer second - feel like I'm getting vertigo from the first. -- Oarih 15:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support either, but with a slight preference for the second. &mdash; David Remahl 04:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support either; prefer second (more detail and less vertigo) Robin Patterson 04:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support second. --ScottyBoy900Q &#8734; 05:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. ugen64 02:43, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, although I can only comment on the first version, as the second won't load in my browser. The first is a highly detailed photo, with excellent focus, color balance etc. Though I am not familiar with the species, it would seem to be a good representation. Pollinator 02:58, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)'
 * Support. Prefer second. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:12, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Strong preference for the first, because wing shape is paramount to proper species identification, and the second image, while apparently more pleasing to some, is less informative because of distortion. Ailatan 21:18, 10/28/2004 (UTC)
 * Support either one, I suppose. I added mutual links so users can flip back! And forth! --Twinxor 21:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose &mdash; Sorry, its not beautiful, striking, shocking, impressive, titillating, fascinating, or in short just brilliant. The butterfly is not sharp. The background should be black. -- NickP 15:56, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. With regards to your comment, I disagree. I think it is extremely beautiful, and the comments above I think verify this. Also in regards to the sharpness - take a look at Pollinator's comments. I know this is an area to voice your opinions but I think your comment was unjustified. --Fir0002 06:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my comments. There already is a much better photo in featured pictures, a moth, Image:Emperor Gum Moth.jpg, by yourself, in fact! How about Image:Bald.eagle.closeup.arp-sh.750pix.jpg as an example of a sharp photo. The second photo here, is not fully in focus. Featured pictures is getting crowded. I don't think we need more than one Lepidoptera. When judging photographs for artistic merit it is important to distinguish between a photo of a beautiful object (that one took) and a beautiful photograph. In these photos, the background is a distraction that takes one eye away from the subject. A butterfly is a form with color. That is what the photo should maximize. Be honest with yourself: Are these the best butterfly photos ever taken, or even amongst those on this site? P.S. You also might try using a film camera and having the negatives or slides scanned. You'll be amazed how much more color you'd get out of this subject matter. &mdash; NickP 01:35, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick for your comments, and I don't mean it sarcastically. Sorry I sort of attacked you, but taking photos of a live butterfly is frustrating as I think you can imagine. Anyway, thanks for your suggestion with film camera, I don't own one as such, but I'll borrow one and try out your idea. --Fir0002 10:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Vote tallys go here, ideally by the user who promoted this image
 * Apparently someone didn't do this, second image was promoted. +10/-1, more votes for 2nd. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  01:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

