Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Polietes lardarius sideview 2 Richard Bartz.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Image:Polietes lardarius sideview 2 Richard Bartz.jpg, not featuredEdit


  •   Info created & uploaded & nominated by   Richard Bartz talk 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info Polietes lardarius of family Muscidae. How about a new benchmark in Dof, plasticity, separation and sharpness ?
  •   Support Its my masterpiece so far because it's totally reduced on the object in a great technical excellence. No flowers needed!   Richard Bartz talk 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Info If you ask yourself what caused this orange background, you should click on this.
  •   Neutral for now for the same reason as above. The added blur is very obvious and displeasing to me.  Support However, this photo is PHENOMENAL (I'm sorry, I meant PHENOMENAL) otherwise. Doodle-doo Ħ 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you familiar with the techniques and resulting limitations in macro photography ? :) --Richard Bartz 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I suppose. I've changed my vote. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support It is indeed a good picture, however, I would crop out the orange section, as it "weights" on top without adding value to the image, it is a distracting element. As for the DOF, it is as it is, inherent to macro photography, no problem there. Congrats. --Tomascastelazo 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I see it like BOB ROSS (rest in peace, buddy), a hill in the background with a surreal sky which gives a lot of space (works as a landscape). But if you view at 100% the background disapears :) As i hold it with creative commons this picture can be later cutted, rotated or whatsoever. Here is the raw material where everything is possible --Richard Bartz 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nothing special, you have much better than this (for example this one, this one and this one, just to mention some of the first in your gallery). Technically it is a correct picture, though not exceptional. I think it would barely pass the QIC barrier. In aesthetical terms, it is a risky business to nominate this kind of critter, without a flower to soften its ugliness. Yes, that side could be also exploited but only with a better resolution/detail and sharpness -- Alvesgaspar 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I find this fly beautiful and probably iam more courageous than you. Regarding my old pictures you listed, I dont like to repeat myself but rather try new scopes for design. This picture has a much better quality than my old ones because they're all crappy flashlight pics. C'est la vie, i'am more large hearted in reviewing macro pictures than you ;-)) --Richard Bartz 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Incredible details, sharp...I have to buy a macro lens... ;) Acarpentier 22:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Buy a Sigma 150mm which is not that expensive and join the club of true macrofreaks ... if you do macro shots similar to your last great contributions then it would be a hot winter :-) Join the freaks ! --Richard Bartz 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey I realy apreciate the tips, I'm going to ebay that right now and start shopping it. Thanks ;) Acarpentier 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent details. --Karelj 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a edit line in the orange part of the bg in the top right, easy fix Benjamint 11:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition not on the fly, detail is average at this zoom. --Beyond silence 20:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Iam convinced now that this is not the right place to nominate such pictures, thank you very much for your constructive comments --Richard Bartz 09:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  •   Comment This one seemed to have a chance to make its way through to FP ! I liked both actually (with a preference for the one above), maybe you shouldn't have withdrawn them so quickly so more people can review it :) Benh 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Benh, i take this withdraw with a pinch of salt ;) Its a approach to test possibilities. The tendency is a decreasing admiration for a whole spamflood of insect macros. So i should come along with something outstanding, because my attempt for the return to essence in insect macros failed. Maybe because iam not surrounded with like-minded people, where finally said this list cannot be the place for this, and such great shots should be better contributed here or there for reviewing and promotion. Last sarcastic but precise joke: Why you dont place this Image:EM Spectrum Properties.svg on a flower to soften its ugliness ? CU back in spring 2008, Regards--Richard Bartz 12:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It may not be appropriate, but it may be too :), but if you don't ask/try, you never know. This one was on a good way to being promoted, so the admiration hasn't "decreased" as much as you said. Hadn't you close the nomination, you could have had even more feedbacks, I don't think that would have bothered people here. Benh 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Its a tendency where i dont feel comfortable with   Richard Bartz talk 18:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)