Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ladybird.tif

File:Ladybird.tif, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2019 at 00:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Coccinellidae (Ladybugs)
Info created by and uploaded by RSC-KWC - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- D-Kuru (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should this not be Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Coccinellidae_(Ladybugs)? --Axel ^(talk) 01:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly.

Done --D-Kuru (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very different from typical ladybug photo. --Axel ^(talk) 01:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture but unfortunately not sharp enough. The exposure time should have been shorter to freeze the movement of the beetle.--Ermell (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo had poor description and categories. As nominator, it is your responsibility to check that all of this is up to standard before making the nom. I have fixed that for you, but please remember this the next time. --Cart (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tif is also a rather cumbersome format. However, I would support this sharpened/edited jpeg version of the photo if you added it as an "Alternative" to your nomination. It is a really nice photo. --Cart (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought about if tif or jpeg is the better one. However, tif can be used for lossless quality, jpg not. Why should we prefer non-lossless over lossless quality? Wouldn't this just be an incetive to not-share the better version? --D-Kuru (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon that the jpeg version is promoted to FP since it is easier to handle and the tif is maintained as an original reference. (Here is one of the latest examples.) A good photo is not just about the quality of the photo, it is also about how accessible the photo is. Not all wiki users have the same high technology standard we here at FPC might have. There is a sharpened TIF version if you prefer that. --Cart (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing in focus. 1/125 sec not right settting. Charles (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the hiar on it's back. How it that not in focus? --D-Kuru (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the hair on the back is Ok. But we focus our attention on the body. And the composition/crop with the white area bottom left is not appealing. Charles (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still: It's an exceptional photo. No need to have another super-sharp shot of a sitting ladybug. Isn't FP also about diversity? --Axel ^(talk) 00:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ermell. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per above, although I don't mind the TIF format; it should be noted that anyone wishing to view in JPEG can simply click the link on the file page below the image itself, and view a full-size JPEG preview. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately per others --Booth sift 04:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]