Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stellaria media

Stellaria media

 * Reason:These flowers are somewhat difficult to photograph due to their extremely small size (approx. 5 mm) and bright white petals. I caught this pair on an overcast day with no wind and thus was able to get some decent shots.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Stellaria media
 * Creator:Kaldari


 * Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good composition but unsharp and overexposed. For an 18mp camera, the image should be much sharper IMO --Muhammad (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Megapixels have nothing to do with it. If I opened up the aperture to reduce the diffraction softening, the depth of field wouldn't be adequate. I could have a 1000 Megapixel camera and it would give the exact same results. At this degree of magnification you're fighting against the limitations of light, not the limitations of your camera (as you probably know from your own macro work). There are some blown highlights on the petals, but that's difficult to avoid with a white flower. If I have some time, I'll try reworking it from the RAW files and dial down the exposure. I'll probably have add some fill light though to keep the shadows from getting too dark. Kaldari (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This and this are about the same size as each flower. The resolution on the subject is much greater and the pictures are much sharper. You mentioned that there was no wind. Would a natural light stack be possible? --Muhammad (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are very impressive. I'll try a natural light stack next time (which should let me use more images). What kind of lens are you using? Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both the pictures, Fir's and mine, were taken with the Sigma 150mm. --21:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is yours stacked or single frame? Kaldari (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a single frame --Muhammad (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, maybe you just have a sharper lens than me. I have a Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro. Maybe I should upgrade. Any suggestions? Kaldari (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very pleased with my Sigma and both Noodle snacks and Richard Bartz get great results with a Tamron 180mm. Both have slower autofocus than your canon but who really uses AF with macros anyway? --Muhammad (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support If do not take 18 mp camera into consideration, seems sharp enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support for me too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a bad shot by any means but I think a FP requires more detail and care with the highlights. Fletcher (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Over-exposed. Let me know when the new version is available. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. Unfortunately, I can't open the RAW files until Adobe updates their Photoshop RAW plug-in to support the Canon 550D. So no exposure correction for now. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)