Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Morelasci.jpg

Info created by Peter G Werner - uploaded by Peter G Werner - nominated by Peter G Werner -- Peter G Werner 08:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter G Werner 08:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Size ! This is a hard decission for me. A great picture which fits perfectly to our yesterday's promoted morel picture nominated by Lycaon. I saw that the pictures resolution is the maximum a AxioCam MR can perform. Maybe Com:VI would be better ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm posting the image full-size. Microscope cameras, just so you know, are an extremely expensive item compared even to digital SLRs, so demanding a large megapixel size heavily restricts the already-small field of micro-imaging, at least when it comes to micro-imaging. The image is 1.44 Mp, so its only a little under the 2 that is typically asked for. I'll have to read up on the "featured image" vs "valued image" difference before I can comment on that – I didn't even know about the latter category. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Canislupus (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Size is insufficient. May I refer you to Com:VI? That's where I nominate my best AxioCam MR photographs too (e.g.). Lycaon (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, strong mitigating reasons. Neutral --Aqwis (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Please elaborate. Very repeatable, still image. Nice sharp but much too small. Where is the mitigation? Lycaon (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. you might have a point about repeatability. I haven't seen very many of this kind of pictures on FPC or on Commons at all (mostly small ones), so I was under the impression that they weren't very easy, especially not high-resolution ones. If it's true that extremely expensive equipment is necessary to get higher resolution pictures (that are reasonably sharp), should we really wait for someone with that kind of equipment to "repeat" this picture? Is that likely to happen, ever? --Aqwis (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that those cameras are expensive (about €5000) for a Peltier cooled camera, but these are often found in labs, paid for by the institute (as in my lab). They have resolutions of up to 12Mpx (Axiocam HR, which is of course considerably more expensive). Suitable microscopes also range from €10,000 upwards. Lycaon (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps if we got a lot of FP candidates for microscopic things I'd be more selective, but as it currently stands they're quite rare and always lower resolution. Nice shot. --Calibas (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Kolossos (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taraxacum (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Idiot (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]