Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Colostygia aqueata Buchstein01.jpg

Image:Colostygia aqueata Buchstein01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 14:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:kulac - uploaded by User:kulac - nominated by User:kulac -- Kulac (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad background--David საქართველო 16:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I´m not familiar with the procedures here, so i´m probably wrong and the picture still has a bad background, but may i refere you to en:Crypsis? --Kulac (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the quality, but "bad background" is really a poor argument. This is called camouflage. Yann (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality is good imo, and the photo is a good illustration of crypsis. Tomer T (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Butterfly has changed color or is it just a coincidence of colors? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think none of what you metioned. Butterflies cannot change colors like a chameleon, not any that I know (I do know a little about BFs). But it looks as if this is not a color coincidence either, but a butterflies which has this color to be camouflage in this rocks where it can rest without being noticed. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent example of camouflage with high educational value. Sadly, it's a quite grey and dull picture with low contrast. -- Achird (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC) / Ximonic and Archaeodontosaurus are right, so I am changing my vote from Weak support to Neutral. -- Achird (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not a bad background. A very good example of camouflage. I think the DOF isn't optimal though and many interesting parts seem to be more blurry than needed. According to my own experiences these specific animals aren't so timid and fly away easily anyway so one can concentrate on optimal technical settings quite safely. --Ximonic (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Katarighe (Talk) 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good didactic image. But the lower wing is blurred. In this situation one has time to experiment. F20 would be a good option. Or put in the exact plane of the butterfly. Personally I would have two images in Focus staking. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alofok * 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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