Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wasp

Wasp

 * Reason:Crisp, clear, high resolution, shows the subject in its natural environment
 * Articles this image appears in: None
 * Creator:Brent Ward
 * Support as nominator &mdash; Brent Ward 11:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sorry, but it is not sharp and detailed enough. Not a wasp either, should be a hoverfly (Syrphidae family) - Alvesgaspar 11:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Alvesgaspar. I've also removed it from Wasp, since it's a helophilus pendulus.  --TotoBaggins 13:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also cropped it a little, and renamed it to Image:Helophilus-pendulus.jpg, and added it to that article. On closer inspection, I note that its right wing is cut off by the leaf, so that would have killed this nom for me anyway, but thanks for the upload, Brent Ward!  --TotoBaggins 14:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose This is a good image. I like the composition and bokeh. However, there are depth of field issues. The left wing and legs and the head are all rather blurry at 100%. Since someone can reasonably retake a similar photo with a greater DOF, I'll have to oppose this image and hope that we get a better image one day. A slightly higher angle that would have shown more of the head would have been nice, and while I am being nitpicky, there is some visible gradient striation in the background.-Andrew c 17:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't someone photoshop it to make it better?
 * Yes, I can edit to make it better, but I don't think that would make it qualify for featured picture. Althepal 18:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you can only do so much with photoshop. If you take a 200 KB photo and apply a blur filter to the whole image and resave the file, the file size will have gone down because you are decreasing the amount of information contained in the file. Similarly, a blurry photo only captured so much information, so Photoshop's unsharpen mask only has that limited information with which to work. If you apply too much of a filter, such as unsharpen mask, you can start to see artifacts from the filter, which generally discount images from featured status. All that said, I don't believe there is enough information in the blurry section for Photoshop to compensate. I'd gladly re-examine any submitted edit though for FP criteria.-Andrew c 18:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In simple talk? Can it be made sharper?
 * Simple answer: no. Sorry.  --TotoBaggins 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I made an edit example. It is sharper, but the head is too blurry for it to be made sharp enough. Althepal 01:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose You call this a wasp? This is a classic example of a Hoverfly with mimic camouflage. As far as quality, the head is out of focus, and the bug is too small in the shot. The POV isn't interesting, either. I've changed the caption because it was incorrect. Althepal 18:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I only took the photograph, i though it was a wasp
 * That's okay. I guess the fly's mimicry worked. ;) Still, the caption needs to be correct. (Check out the Hoverfly article and see other pictures.) BTW: I only said why it should not be featured. I would like to say that it has a nice blurred background and the colors are beautiful. Althepal 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You took the picture and nominated it here. As a general remark: This is a good example that a picture should not be nominated right after insertion into an article. Let it be scrutinized by the people who have the article on their watchlist! --Dschwen 10:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not sharp enough. --Mad Max 07:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unfortunately, the crop/edit can't address the focus.  tiZom(2¢)  14:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "How not to do a macro photo."--Svetovid 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * * This comment is unnecessarily uncivil. The photo is excellent for an article, just not FP material. Debivort 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't lie to people. Objective criticism is the way to improvement. Not telling the truth not to "hurt" someone's emotions is the way to the current shitty public school system.--Svetovid 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A little more specific/constructive criticism would be appreciated. --Dschwen 15:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's almost completely out of focus.--Svetovid 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 11:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)