- Reason
- Another of Richard Bartz' superb macro shots. There seems to be some delay with getting these nominated on the English WP (many of them are featured on Commons and the German Wikipedia, among others). I hope we can catch up a bit.
- Articles this image appears in
- Four-spotted Chaser
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 00:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. Nicely composed and very sharp.--ragesoss (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)- Oppose per Fir's evidence of undisclosed, flawed focus-bracketing.--ragesoss (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Support. Neutral. I'm impressed that the sharp focus goes almost to the wing tips. —Pengo 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC) (guess focus braking explains why "f/7.1" could get so much in focus) —Pengo 12:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)- Support - Wow. Really nice picture. pschemp | talk 04:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
SupportGorgeous. DurovaCharge! 05:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)- Changing to oppose per Fir0002. Sorry to disappoint; please try again. DurovaCharge! 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- There is no guarantee that the creator is actually reading this nomination - just for general information. I notified him but he may have a reason for announcing his departure from the German WP. And I don't think anybody else has the originals. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Changing to oppose per Fir0002. Sorry to disappoint; please try again. DurovaCharge! 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose As Pengo pointed out it is quite unusual to find a shot like this which has a DOF from wing tip to wing tip. And there's a very good reason for it in this picture - it's a (poorly done) focus bracket. Don't believe me? Well perhaps you could explain how the focus varies in and out along the stem of the (presumeably straight) plant stalk? I'd also be interested in the reason behind the out of focus areas on the wings. The doubling up of the cells in the wings is also highly unusual. But perhaps most disturbing of all is the leg appearing through a wing!! While I have no problems with focus bracketing as a technique (I do it myself), I do have a problem with poor examples such as this one, which produce a very unrealistic and therefore highly unenc photo! I'm also not keen on the fact that it wasn't disclosed on the image description page - very misleading to most people! --Fir0002 08:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and from a purely aesthetic stand point I think there's too much dead space in this image - could do with a tighter crop (get rid of some of the RHS) --Fir0002 08:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not the creator, so I can't "explain" anything to you. Richard Bartz may have decided not to be active on Wikipedias any more. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 08:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- No I think Richard is still active . But I agree, you don't have to explain anything I'm convinced - if you read this comment in context I'm addressing it to a hypothetical person who disagrees... --Fir0002 08:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- You'll see that I said that he's no longer active on Wikipedias. If I meant he was no longer active on Commons, I would have said that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- No I think Richard is still active . But I agree, you don't have to explain anything I'm convinced - if you read this comment in context I'm addressing it to a hypothetical person who disagrees... --Fir0002 08:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not the creator, so I can't "explain" anything to you. Richard Bartz may have decided not to be active on Wikipedias any more. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 08:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and from a purely aesthetic stand point I think there's too much dead space in this image - could do with a tighter crop (get rid of some of the RHS) --Fir0002 08:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral, it's a nice image, but I concur with Fir's technical points. A better stitch would get my support. --Janke | Talk 09:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose Focus brackets are best done in artificial, controlled conditions where the subject is not moving (which, for animals, means sedated, sleeping, or dead)--see here. Maybe even a poorly done focus bracket would be better than nothing, but the leg through the wing kills it for me.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, just for clarification - where does it say what the condition of the animal was in the wolf spider series? I can't find any evidence that it was either of those things (sedated, sleeping, or dead). (Not to mention that it's a poor comparison as the spider doesn't have wings, but fair enough, I get your point.) Grateful if you (or Fir) could clarify. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- The spider was initially cooled in a fridge to sedate him - although it didn't seem to last long and there were many failed brackets before I got this one. --Fir0002 11:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, just for clarification - where does it say what the condition of the animal was in the wolf spider series? I can't find any evidence that it was either of those things (sedated, sleeping, or dead). (Not to mention that it's a poor comparison as the spider doesn't have wings, but fair enough, I get your point.) Grateful if you (or Fir) could clarify. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for the focus bracketing errors, shame - would support it if it was reworked. Mfield (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support I've got no problems with this photo. High quality and enough EV to gain my support. – LATICS talk 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. A valued image, but not a featurable one. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fir's comments. Wonder what we would have done otherwise :) Muhammad(talk) 12:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted . --John254 00:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)