Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lrotschildi.jpg

This picture picture clearly illustrates the description from the article: "A variety of bright colors are known, often in complicated patterns," as well as "glossy iridescent colors." It is a nice closeup that even shows individual ommatidia of the eyes. It appears in the Jewel Beetle / Buprestidae article, and was taken by me - Debivort.

• Nominate and support. - Debivort 18:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I don't know if it will be possible to clear up the left side of the image because it seems blurry compared to the right side. -- Thorpe ^talk 20:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - you are totally right about the focus on the left side. Another example of the depth of field issues associated with macro lenses, and it applies to the right hand side too. The head of the specimen is about 7mm across, so I had to restrict the focussed regions to the head and pronotum. Here is a cropped version as an alternative. Of course, one could argue that having some regions unfocused helps draw attention to interesting focused details, such as the reticulation. --

• Vivid colors, but the cloth/denim background doesn't fit, and the portion of the image in focus is extremely small (with the rest being very blurry). Phils 21:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• About the nature of working in macro mode: Unless you want to stop down to F/64, (only possible with a good SLR macro lens) you're going to have to make some sacrifices concerning DOF. Although I understand perfectly well his reasoning concerning the blurriness and the picture's worth as a featured picture, I still think people should take into consideration the fact that sometimes such things are beyond a photographer's control, and perhaps be a little more forgiving in their judgements. However, I do agree about the cloth, it's totally out of place.PiccoloNamek 07:11, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I am really sorry if I was too harsh; I don't want to masquerade as a great photo expert, because really I'm not, but the photograph in question really gave me the impression the DOF was not used optimally. Maybe it was taken at an odd angle, but there is a real imbalance in sharpness between the right and left sides of the shot. For example, look at the portion of cloth in sharp focus on the right, the cloth on the left is not as sharp. Why have any cloth in such sharp focus, with the rest so blurry? Phils 10:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a new picture and edited it to a simple off-white background. Another possibility, though it still has the focus issues.

Would it be possable to crop the image with the white backgroud so it looks the same as the other image, the one titled 'cropped version'. Having the out-of-focus rest of the beetle there really doesn't look all that great. I would suggest taking the cropped version, editing the backgroud and doing nothing else to it. Raven4x4x 08:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This can be done, but only after I get back from work (around 21:00 UTC on 13.xi.2005), which is after voting should start. I don't know if that's illegal or immoral or what not, but until then you all can imagine a cropped one with a white background. --

Please remember to sign and date your nominations using --~~~~. Thanks. --AllyUnion (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't like the background in the first two, and in the second, the position is just awkward, and the upper half being out of focus doesn't really help. Enochlau 11:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, distracting non-natural background. Prefer to see life specimen. This one appears dead. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I support the first picture. I don't mind a certain degree of blur. It's the picture as a whole that counts. JoJan 21:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 11:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)