Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tectus niloticus 01.JPG
File:Tectus niloticus 01.JPG, not featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2011 at 21:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support That's a good close-up. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Steven Walling 02:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality (I think because of bad camera setting used), harsh flat front lighting, probably a missing view (90° angle between shots, and only 5 view). Unforgivable errors on repeatable shots in my opinion. I could copy and paste my other reviews on similar pics. - Benh (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Rather blurry and also sloppy masking. Large size does not compensate for quality in images taken in a controlled environment. W.S. 07:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry W.S., I think you have not the right to vote. According to the new guidelines, only editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. I know not a single edit! --Llez (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support Ggia (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality, per WS and Benh. Look at the full resolution, folks.--Snaevar (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the close-up. --Llez (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think about the patterns when I talk about the blurriness, and I don't think Sneavar did either. The fine reliefs you mention and that we can see should be sharper than that. Nothing is as sharp as it deserves at f/32. See this [1]. We already notice that f/16 alters the image quality, so we can imagine how bad a setting f/32 is. Maybe it was for getting more DOF, but not sure this is a good compromise. - Benh (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Technical arguments aside my point was that to the eye it's not blurry. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- To your eye then... - Benh (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Better DOF often means better sharpness overall, the primary concern of F numbers seems to be brightness not sharpness and in the case of a scientific image meant to show off detail of an item like this one I don't see anything else that could matter besides getting the full depth. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not really... DOF is the part of the image where sharpness is close enough to the best spot. If that best spot if already very bad, as in f/32, you'll be only close enough to bad. Since you seem to care about quality of a scientific image, you should be a bit more picky about that. Also please note the use of ISO 200 when this is absolutely not necessary. So, either each image could be shot a lower f number, meaning better quality and less DOF, but the OOF parts would likely be in focus on the other views anyways; or either author could use stack focusing, as per this very fine example of this (not hard at all to use) technique. Well it's a bit harder on potentially moving macro subjects. - Benh (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support--shizhao (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support I think its a very good scientific picture!(H. Krisp (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC))
- Being a good scientific picture (which it probably is) does not necessarily make for a good FP. W.S. 10:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per Benh.--Claus (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 00:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)