Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Calligrapha fulvipes 275169890.jpg

File:Calligrapha fulvipes 275169890.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2023 at 00:22:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Chrysomelidae_(Leaf_Beetles)
Info created by Zygy - uploaded by Nosferattus - nominated by Nosferattus -- Nosferattus (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nosferattus (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dislike the glare. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and the size and lack of sharpness. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: Calligrapher beetles are generally quite tiny, so it's unlikely to get a photograph with the entire organism in sharp focus. All the important features of the beetle, however, are sharp here. I think some leeway should be given for subjects this small (while still conforming to the minimum criteria). It's fine if you still choose to oppose, but I hope you will consider the limitations of macro photography when evaluating candidates. Cheers! Nosferattus (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have experience of the limitations of macro photography. I've not got an FP of a beetle this small. I can't see any EXIF data, so I don't know your camera/lens/settings. It's in focus, but it's not sharp. I imagine you have had to perform a big crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Charlesjsharp: So in cases like this, would you prefer more sharpness/resolution even if it meant sacrificing some depth of field (presumably by increasing magnification and/or tightening the aperture)? For example, what do you think of images like these (ignoring the watermarks): [1][2]? Would you consider those to be featured picture caliber (if they didn't have watermarks)? Nosferattus (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sharpness and dof are independent variables. Please share your EXIF. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I assume you're referring to the use of focus stacking? Without it, they are not independent: decreasing aperture will increase depth-of-field at the expense of sharpness, due to diffraction; increasing magnification to fill a larger portion of the frame with the bug will decrease the (effective) aperture, again affecting sharpness due to diffraction. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this is quite up to current FP standards for macro photography. There's no EXIF to double-check, but I assume the softness is the result of a small aperture and/or a large crop? The best macro images we've seen around here lately are either focus stacks or those that use the limited depth of field to draw the observer's attention to a particular element (e.g. the eye of an insect or a flower's anthems) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't get why this image has so many opposes, it's class. 20 upper 08:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Jules. And general dullness. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]