Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eristalis tenax and flowers.jpg

File:Eristalis tenax and flowers.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 23:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Baresi franco - uploaded by Baresi franco - nominated by Baresi franco -- Baresi franco (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baresi franco (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- exceptional in vivo work. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add species ID in latin to the description (if possible, also for the flower) and category. --Ivar (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reduced background noise level. Please revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Idea - the background was a bit rough. The noise was from me originally sharpening the whole frame (didn't really know what I was doing at the time). I've gone back to the original photo and selectively sharpened, re-cropped and uploaded again to get best quality. See what you think. --Baresi franco (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Only the category is still missing. --Ivar (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 22:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gidip (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little pixellated. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not revert legitimate comments just because you don't like or understand them. Your could have asked for clarification. Your assessment of this image uses the term pixellated when there is no evidence of such. Perhaps chroma noise is what you were after? I simply indicated this state of confuision could be descibed as being pixilated, a similar word, but quite a different meaning. 131.137.245.209 19:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh!! Sorry about that. The way you said it, it sounded like a personal attack. I will relook the image later. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certain parts of the picture on or around the bee look rather pixellated. And yes, there's also the CA on the wings, although I did not mention it in my reason above. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind placing a note over the areas in question? Even at 100% on such a high res image I find it hard to discern any pixels. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the note. As for the CAs, I did not add any note. It's around the flower petals and wings. Cheers. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems a good camera for macro works. J e e 15:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods