Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:P1170085 Coenonympha glycerion.jpg

File:P1170085 Coenonympha glycerion.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2010 at 07:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This butterfly photographed in the early morning (see EXIF), which all still sleeping. I was lucky, because the morning dew was abundant. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing and stunning. Support! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 12:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kallerna, I think this image has the wrong name. The right name of this file could be "Dew on the Coenonympha glycerion". The right name is important for FP. Would you say "the file has good quality" if it would have this name?--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't. The problem is the posterization and unsharpness. —kallerna™ 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --•Teroses ^{je t'écoute} 13:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some posterization, but the subject is really beatiful. However, the description is quite short. I'm willing to support this if you elaborate a little bit - e.g. why there is water etc. BTW, is the EXIF time stamp (04:33) correct? Add some text about that as well, please. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EXIF time stamp are correct. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for adding the info to this page, but I actually meant the actual file page. That's the place where it benefits the end users. --MattiPaavola (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Now OK ? - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support Yes, now the search engines also find it based on "dew". Thanks for the wonderful photo (and waking up for it rediculously early :))! --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't agree with kallerna. Amazing picture with good quality. --Simonizer (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Oppose per Kallerna! I really like this picture (like the most of Darius' pics) but IMO the quality isn't compatible to our macro standard. There is posterization and nothing is really sharp. Maybe its because of noise reduction and then sharpening to much, I dont know... If you compare them to already featured macros like these for example, I hope you will see what I mean. If it's possible I'd like to see an completly unedited version of this. Best regards Leviathan (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Leviathan is right about the technical issues, but for me the wow just overrides the flaws. But I´d like to see an unedited version, too. Perhaps a little overprocessed? Nikopol (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might be right ... Edit:-1EV exposure correction, noise removal, sharpening weak. Photo, until editing, was a bit too bright. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Torn between wow and technical issues. Seems a bit Overprocessed. --Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't agree with Kallerna. This is really an awesome picture! Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kallerna, I asked you something (look above). --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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