Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Vespula germanica Richard Bartz.jpg

Image:Vespula germanica Richard Bartz.jpg, featured edit

Info created, uploaded & nominated by --Richard Bartz 15:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Richard Bartz 15:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Infrogmation 18:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lestat 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the plasticity. --Digitaldreamer 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo 22:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit soft and noisy... but amazing point of view and DOF. I guess noise was the price to pay for the DOF (?). Very nice colours also. wow ! Benh 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 01:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Support Similar as Benh. --Beyond silence 02:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is why I am so picky and oppose most other insects. Images like this are the expectation. -- Ram-Man 05:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again I wonder if I'm the only one who cares what the full res image looks like. Unacceptably soft at full res. Compare with Image:Vespula germanica Horizontalview Richard Bartz.jpg and Image:Image-Vespula germanica Head Richard Bartz.jpg --Fir0002 www 08:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to here --Richard Bartz 15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is among the best we have with this resolution - Alvesgaspar 10:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But I won't support any more of your macro shots until you start including the exif info. - Alvesgaspar 11:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is getting silly... People give you a hand, you ask for the whole arm. OK I don't know if this can be said in english, but you got me I guess. Always asking for more isn't true to the spirit of wikipedia/wikimedia IMO. I think we must see EXIF as a bonus only. Benh 12:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the hand and the arm are not really for me but for the Wikimedia project. If basic tecnical information about the pictures is normally included in photo magazines why should our best photographers hide it from the rest of us? That is indeed a good way to learn from them. Anyway I don't believe that Richard was chocked or offended with my "demand"... - Alvesgaspar 22:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I certainly won't oppose on the basis of lack of EXIF, but it is helpful with macro shots because it allows us to confirm DoF. I'd be happy even if those numbers were published and we just took your word for it (same thing as an EXIF editor anyway). -- Ram-Man 22:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes please include EXIF information. -- Ram-Man 15:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I optimize them for webusage with Adobe Image Ready and then the exif data is lost. Should organise an Exif Editor, will do that, promissed ;) --Richard Bartz 15:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - this might help you ! (I've never used it so I can't give you any feedback) -- Benh 09:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one. - Noumenon _talk 11:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Schön, schön --Simonizer 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Poromiami 06:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Digon3 ^talk 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Atoma 08:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Seeder 18:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Bibon 12:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please state your reason as a courtesy to the author --MichaelMaggs 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]