Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Trithemis annulata

Trithemis annulata

 * Reason:Good quality and EV. Previous images in the articles were much smaller and very noisy.
 * Articles this image appears in:Trithemis, Trithemis annulata
 * Creator:Muhammad


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The dragonfly looks spectacular (reminds me of solarisation). The picture quality however is so so compared to the tons of dragonfly FPs we already have. --Dschwen 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was personally quite impressed with the sharpness - the DOF seems just about right for the circumstances. I don't like systemic bias either, and I understand that we're not covering all the insect groups equally, but Muhammad has done a lot of work on Diptera and Hymenoptera (even recently a Hemipteran), so I'm not sure that criticizing this on systemic bias grounds has energy flowing in the right direction. The slightly sharper and larger picture we already had of this species is fairly noisy by comparison, but one *could* try cleaning it up if there's a preference. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are certainly right about the systemic bias. The sharpness however is not impressive at all, given the rather small size of this image. --Dschwen 12:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I could only find four dragonfly FPs in the collection and the sharpness of all is very much similar, if not inferior to this one. --Muhammad (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ORLY?! Counterexample (yeah sorry, my own is the first that comes to mind). Check out commons for a few more, this being a nice example. And if you dismiss them for not being featured here yet, prepare for a nomination flood ;-). The bottom line is that higher technical quality is possible, and in fact we have better pictures in the project. --Dschwen 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Before nominating this image, I checked out yours to be sure it met the standards. I wouldn't want to get into a discussion of the sharpness of your image (I nominated it for FP some time ago) but I think my picture has a slightly larger DOF achieved by a smaller aperture and sharpness may thus have suffered. Nonetheless, I don't think there are significant differences in the sharpness. The other image is a damselfly and these are a lot easier to photograph; I will be nominating a few of mine soon which I managed to focus stack even at 1:1 using a tripod! --Muhammad (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be looking forward to see these, in the mean time the crazy colors earn this one at least a weak support from me. --Dschwen 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, per Papa Lima Whiskey. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Wow, Muhammad, :-)  Mae din \talk 12:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 10:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)