Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Feeding Down 3008px.jpg

Info created and uploaded by Ram-Man - nominated by Benh -- Benh 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support cute -- Benh 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm tempted to say slightly overexposed, but I'm no expert. A great shot. User:MarcusObal MarcusObal 23:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some parts are overexposed, and the DOF is too shallow for my taste. Dori - Talk 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can we really talk about overexposure here ?? sometimes there are white parts (I mean white) on a picture and we can do nothing about it... Benh 10:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most of the overexposure is on the yellow stripes. And even for white parts, you can't really get absolute white when dealing with an imperfect camera and imperfect lighting conditions. Dori - Talk 15:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't this kind of overexpure acceptable ? because I guess lighting was intense and "specular light" (don't know how to call the reflections) couldn't be avoided without underexposing the others parts. Benh 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not on this kind of subject (easily reproduceable, could have shot it in shade, used a diffuser, could have done HDR, etc.), but obviously I'm the only one that thinks so. But my oppose is also due to the DOF. Dori - Talk 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The focus is slightly off, but it's just good enough and I so love the pose. I've taken shots like this in the shade, shots with flash, and shots like this in bright sun. This looked best with the highest contrast. This "overexposure" is very slight. -- Ram-Man 01:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was comparing it to this one Image:Agrius_convolvuli_korseby.jpeg, which is strangely at a bigger aperture and focal length than yours and still has more focus. Dori - Talk 02:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that strange. The caterpillar in this picture is not perfectly parallel to the image sensor, so its head is on the borderline of adequate DoF. Also, the Canon (1.6x crop factor) has slightly higher DoF than the Nikon (1.5x crop factor) for any given aperture. They can't be directly compared. -- Ram-Man 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Beyond silence 08:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Truly brilliant. --Aqwis 13:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LucaG 13:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support great overall picture. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 13:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 21:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Pumpmeup 04:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]