Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyrrhososma nymphula Luc Viatour.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Pyrrhosoma nymphula
Picture of the day for Saint Valentine's Day (on February 14)? illustrates the page Large_Red_Damselfly
- Nominate and Abstain - Luc Viatour 12:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Amazing choice for PoTD on February 14! Support. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support Good photo, encyclopedic. HighInBC 13:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. A good choice for Valentine's day, but not up to quality standards. It's blurry, and it looks like it's been artificially sharpened in excess. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Agree with Pharaoh Hound, its a nicely photographed image but looks a bit overcooked with processing/sharpening. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. The image is almost entirely green. Royalbroil 01:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- This strikes me as a very strange reason to oppose the image. Debivort 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I mean that there needs to be more variability in color. Too much of a good thing. Royalbroil 13:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- This strikes me as a very strange reason to oppose the image. Debivort 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support Eye-catching subject and high resolution. In response to the two criticisms so far: the photo is not blurry, only the background is out of focus because of the Depth of Field. It gives the background has less clutter and makes the subject pop. Viewed at maximum size the wing veins are crystal clear. As for the color complaint, this is just odd. A vivid and beautiful color theme really makes this image for me, and provides good color contrast with the red insects. Thumbs up. --Bridgecross 22:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Pharaoh Hound wasn't referring to the background, but rather that a blurry photograph had been oversharpened. But you're right that the DOF is good in this image. --Tewy 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- That pretty much sums up my oppose Tewy. I wasn't complaining about the background (I know that it's intentionally blurry), but that it's obviously artificially sharpened in excess, which leaves it looking somehwat blurry as well as low quality. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Pharaoh Hound wasn't referring to the background, but rather that a blurry photograph had been oversharpened. But you're right that the DOF is good in this image. --Tewy 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Fairly good composition, but not good enough technically; oversharpened. --Tewy 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Per Above --Fir0002 11:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)- Weak Support - Good photo, i just find a little unnatural. Arad 01:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted
