Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Western tent caterpillars and their tent

Western Tent Caterpillars and their Tent

 * Reason:High resolution, good quality image, which shows caterpillars both inside and outsite the tent
 * Articles this image appears in:Tent caterpillar
 * Creator:Mbz1


 * Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Situation resolved There are visible jpeg compression artifacts at full size.  Zoo Fari  23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me, where you see them? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everywhere. If you zoom in, they are very bad compared to normal grainness. This was probably caused by inappropriate edits. If you still have the original, then there is a chance of fixing it with more caution about artifacts.  Zoo Fari  23:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I still cannot see CA, but I uploaded what seems to be my original File:Tent caterpillar original.jpg. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... they are definitely CA. The original doesn't have none. It must have been an edit that caused the manipulation. Try nominating the original...  Zoo Fari  00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,I did, but I am still not sure about CA. Do you see them on Caterpillars or on the bush? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here... I have posted a comparison guide to show the difference between the original and bad CA.  Zoo Fari  00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Well. I believed it was some noise, and I believed it was not such a big problem. The resolution of the image is much higher than required. It could have been down sampled, but I simply withdraw the nomination. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? That original seems pretty good. Don't get discouraged. If you can edit the white balance (seems cloudy) without causing CA, I think it has some good chances for either FP or VP. I think the CA was caused by over sharpening.  Zoo Fari  01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is compression artifacts at all - it doesn't look like what I know jpeg artifacting to be. It looks more like patterns of noise exacerbated by strong sharpening. The sharpening is a bit strong and unnecessary if you ask me though. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Diliff, for taking your time to look and to comment on the withdrawn nomination! I uploaded a new version over the first file. I hope it is better. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is unecessary confusion here as ZooFari is using the acronym CA to refer to compression artifacts, but the abbreviation CA is commonly used in photography to refer to Chromatic Abberation which is a unwanted color shift created in poorly designed/corrected or just plain cheap lenses, and that may be what Mkz1 expected you meant by CA? I can't see any Chromatic Abberation for sure, and agree with Diliff that it looks like overcooked sharpening of inherent noise. Mfield (Oi!) 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it is oversharpened. It seems like this because the resolution is higher than necessary, thus zoomed too close that they seem like compression artifacts (by the way, CA in my comments ment compression artifacts). The grain gets sharpened as well creating these unwanted patterns, as Diliff mentioned. This creates a problem in thumbnails, so perhaps the version that's not oversharpened is better.  Zoo Fari  01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this CA whatever it was is gone now in both the edit of the original and the original no edit, so may I please ask you, ZooFari to change the oppose reason? Just for me to learn my mistakes for the feature. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm going to commit to this one. The image quality at 100% isn't ideal, but it's a fascinating scene and the detail is enough to get an idea of the overall subject, even if not the individual caterpillars. In this case I think the enc gets it over the line. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support it is much better now.  Zoo Fari  19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Seems alright. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you went back to the original when you prepared the second version (i.e. the one uploaded over the original edited "original" - yes, your naming could be better, or your upload strategy, whichever). Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the edit was made out of the original not of the edit. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The picture is very encyclopedic, and the color and artifacts look fine now.  hmwith  τ   13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 02:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)