Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tubal Pregnancy with embryo.jpg
Image:Tubal Pregnancy with embryo.jpg, not featured edit
Info created by Euthman - uploaded by Patho - nominated by Yonatan --Yonatan talk 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Support the photo is already a featured picture on en --Yonatan talk 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Question Interesting, though as it's a dead specimen I wonder why it doesn't appear to be in focus. The image was taken at f8 which is surprising; I'd have expected much smaller f-stop to give as large a depth of field as possible. --MichaelMaggs 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The image description says it was shot using an old 1970's macro set up with bellows at full extension, which would have dictated a wide aperture (in lieu of powerful strobes) and basically the lens itself is at its absolute limit in terms of resolving power. Realising this and remembering the embyo is less than a half-inch long, and you have to credit the photographer with a job well done, in the circumstances. It's a great exposure. Not sure this has any bearing on its FP candidacy, unfortunately, even if it is a fascinating image. I tried to enhance it but a combination of medium-fast stock, poor scan (very soft grain just visible) and jpeg compression means it just posterizes as soon a you try to sharpen it. Macro shots really do need to be sharp and detailed, something this one will never be, I fear. mixpix 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can try contacting the author on en. Yonatan talk 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The image description says it was shot using an old 1970's macro set up with bellows at full extension, which would have dictated a wide aperture (in lieu of powerful strobes) and basically the lens itself is at its absolute limit in terms of resolving power. Realising this and remembering the embyo is less than a half-inch long, and you have to credit the photographer with a job well done, in the circumstances. It's a great exposure. Not sure this has any bearing on its FP candidacy, unfortunately, even if it is a fascinating image. I tried to enhance it but a combination of medium-fast stock, poor scan (very soft grain just visible) and jpeg compression means it just posterizes as soon a you try to sharpen it. Macro shots really do need to be sharp and detailed, something this one will never be, I fear. mixpix 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think it is a great image of a rare subject, could we down sample it a bit? Strictly speaking, it is almost double the minimum requirements. This isn't the ideal solution, but it would make it "appear" sharper. --Cody.Pope 02:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)- Support // tsca [re] 15:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry to oppose what's clearly a rare image, but the fact that the subject matter may be uncommon doesn't improve the actual image quality. The picture may have been taken with a 1970s lens, and the subject may be quite small, but the quality of the equipment used shouldn't in my view be used to excuse a very much less-than-sharp image. Unfortunately, it's not an impressively focussed image, and it's simply a shame that the photographer didn't have access to better equipment and lighting. --MichaelMaggs 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)- Oppose - agree with MichaelMaggs - MPF 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - so do I -- Lycaon 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose same as MichaelMaggs --Karelj 17:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm with Michael too. Alvesgaspar 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - go ahead and close it then. ;) Yonatan talk 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
