Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Robert Hooke's Flea

[[Media:HookeFlea02.jpg|Robert Hooke's Flea]]
(vote was closed and made a featured picture, making my comment here at the top for visibility only):

The picture Image:HookeFlea02.jpg is a poor JPEG version of the high-resolution original Image:flea.png, maybe you should replace the former with the latter but just a suggestion -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  16:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

An illustration of a flea from the first book to show what the microscopic world looks like. Used in Micrographia. -- Solipsist 21:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Solipsist 21:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Alphax (talk) 01:59, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Very good. --Fir0002 07:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. --[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:19, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * The "colorized" version looks like a negative image of the original black and white picture - dark areas are bright and bright areas are dark. What is the rationale for the process used?--Eloquence*
 * I was following a similar treatment which I saw in Zembla magazine last year. Its purely for dramatic effect, with the link to the original BW for authenticity. -- Solipsist 08:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to oppose the inverted version on grounds of being an inaccurate representation both of the object being depicted, and the artist's effort. However, I would support the original picture.--Eloquence*
 * Support the inverted version, I think it makes the picture clearer. Small point regarding copyright status...The tag is not completely appropriate, since the image has been post-processed in a way that requires creativity. Solipsist has two options: license the new version under GFDL, or release the updated version into the public domain again. If the first, the tag should be GFDL . If the other, I suppose  is fine, but solipsist must still make the release of the changes clear. &mdash; David Remahl 04:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point on the copyright tag. I hadn't really thought about it, but then I guess the colourisation isn't that creative. I'll put a note on the page in any case.
 * Slight support; but I love the original - could we have it instead? Robin Patterson 04:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. It always seemed cool to me how identical to cicada shells fleas appear. --ScottyBoy900Q &#8734; 05:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the original image is more dramatic and easier on the eyes, would support that one. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:19, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Would support the original Image:HookeFlea01.jpg without hesitation. The shadows and feature on the original are much clearer, whereas the "fudged" version looks like a negative, and reminds me of a squashed dried bug found in an old book. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:53, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support the BW image HookeFlea01.jpg - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 19:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Bw HookeFlea01   &mdash; Pdefer | !! 03:35, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
 * Oppose the colorized version - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 01:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Colorized version: +7/-4, Original: +5/-0 (not counting possible votes for b/w version before it was listed). Seems fair to promote the original b/w version. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:05, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

