Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bee killer wasp
Bee-killer wasp edit
- Reason
- Large, detailed and high quality depiction of a beautiful species adding valure to the article on the European beewolf.
- Proposed caption
- European beewolf, or bee-killer, is a solitary digger wasp of the Crabronidae family, which nests in the ground. Though adult animals are vegetarian, feeding on pollen and nectar, impregnated females chase honey bees, paralyze them with the sting, and stock them in a underground chamber to feed the larvae.
- Articles this image appears in
- European beewolf
- Creator
- Joaquim Alves Gaspar
- Support as nominator Alvesgaspar 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support
It's not in the European beewolf article, but it should be.Forwards to a different page now. Looks great. --Puddyglum 18:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)- Yes, it is :-)) Alvesgaspar 18:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose The composition is nice, but the image suffers from what looks like a slight motion blur, and the focus isn't quite spot on - difficult, for sure, with such a shallow DOF. --Janke | Talk 19:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that this a much larger size (>2200 px) and resolution (300 dpi) than required by the guidelines. If the image was to be downsampled to 1000 px, or even to "Fir's standard" (1600 px), those minimal flaws would probably become unnoticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvesgaspar (talk • contribs)
- What does dpi have to do with it? thegreen J Are you green? 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that this a much larger size (>2200 px) and resolution (300 dpi) than required by the guidelines. If the image was to be downsampled to 1000 px, or even to "Fir's standard" (1600 px), those minimal flaws would probably become unnoticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvesgaspar (talk • contribs)
- Weak Oppose per Janke. I really like it, though. If downsampled to "Fir's standard" as you note, 1.7 MP, even smaller than 1600px the flaws are still obvious, if somewhat more subtle. Unrelated to the vote, I dislike your using of Fir's pictures to justify yours. I personally dislike that Fir provides so heavily downsampled his images (not that I'm complaining; the pictures are all amazing and resolution is far beyond what any other web encyclopedia - not to mention a free one - provides), and following that example to encourage degrading all of our images so that they can look prettier at a certain size is not the way to go. FP standard is 1000px, true, but it really better be something special to scrape the limits. thegreen J Are you green? 21:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - There was no pejorative intention when referring to “Fir’s standard”. On the contrary, that was the recognition of his important contribution in macro shots during the last months. From October 2006 to now 26 FP of insects were promoted and 21 were shot by Fir0002 in the “1600 px” format. Should we then say “WP macro standard” instead of “Fir standard”? Anyway, why is an author not allowed to refer to Fir’s macros when the reviewers, and also himself, do it when evaluating other pictures (not always with fairness by the way)? - Alvesgaspar 08:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - from my perspective I don't really mind when people compare photos against mine (it's usually quite flattering to see). However the usage here is obviously not such a case and was mildly irritating. Just my two cents Fir0002 09:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's no reason for you to get irritated, (it is of course, if you do not think that I was right.)--Mbz1 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I have no problem with refering to other users' pictures to try to get an idea of what the standard is. However, the fact that you referred to it as "Fir's standard" bothers me; we have the FP standard, but taking one user's uploads (however worthy of FP) to set the standard for all FP... FP is about amazing pictures, not amazing pictures at 1600px. Because Fir produces wonderful pictures at 1600px doesn't mean that everyone should downsample his pictures to 1600px. An FP should e great on its own right, rather than compared to others. I agree that Fir's pictures play a gigantic role in answering "What is a FP?" - I'm hope I'm not just succumbing to over-correctness that seems to be more and more the way. thegreen J Are you green? 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Now it's my turn to be slightly bothered (and also bored, by the way). Any idea why this picture got recently featured, instead of the original? Right, it was edited by Fir0002 and downsampled to his 1600px standard. Just look at the well-tunned voting chorus. Significant, isn't it? - Alvesgaspar 10:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can't decide what the community consensus is; I just think calling a downsampled picture better than the original is just wrong in most cases. Deleting useful information because it isn't perfectly sharp. Of course, I don't mind if a downample doesn't actually delete anything, but otherwise, it's just giving people less. thegreen J Are you green? 19:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's no reason for you to get irritated, (it is of course, if you do not think that I was right.)--Mbz1 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Comment - from my perspective I don't really mind when people compare photos against mine (it's usually quite flattering to see). However the usage here is obviously not such a case and was mildly irritating. Just my two cents Fir0002 09:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - There was no pejorative intention when referring to “Fir’s standard”. On the contrary, that was the recognition of his important contribution in macro shots during the last months. From October 2006 to now 26 FP of insects were promoted and 21 were shot by Fir0002 in the “1600 px” format. Should we then say “WP macro standard” instead of “Fir standard”? Anyway, why is an author not allowed to refer to Fir’s macros when the reviewers, and also himself, do it when evaluating other pictures (not always with fairness by the way)? - Alvesgaspar 08:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Significant motion blur. Sorry, but I think we can demand higher standards even at that res. For interest, I've uploaded Image:Large brown mantid07 edit crop.jpg which shows a crop at 100% of the original size. Obviously the quality of the crop is not equal to that of the downsampled image, but it is still reasonable --Fir0002 09:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- As reasonable, I think, as the quality of the presente picture whose subject has a much finer detail. - Alvesgaspar 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fir0002 --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Withdrawn my nomination - That was my best macro shot, much better IMO than this one, this one or even this one. Sorry, I don't believe that this picture was evaluated with care. "Significant motion blur"? Where, in the antenae? This shot was made outside, with some wind and no flash. Under these conditions, it is expected the DOF to be less than perfect (it was 3.5mm in this case). Really I can't stop thinking that this place suffers sometimes from a sterile pedantism. Alvesgaspar 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- IMO the focus is spot on the head and that's were it has to be. DOF is very narrow it's common for macro shots. I don't see no motion blur. Ericd 01:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Alvesgaspar, I think your dragonfly shows better sharpness than the wasp, even though the DOF is small. Check the smallest details on the wasp (white spots on wing edge), they're all stretched to short vertical line, which indicates motion blur. I wouldn't call it significant, but this picture isn't razor sharp. That's why my oppose was weak only. Otherwise, I like this picture, just so you know! --Janke | Talk 06:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well the real problem is not motion blurr DOF or any other bullshit. The real problem is Out of Focus Yellow thing in the background. Ericd 19:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Alvesgaspar, I think your dragonfly shows better sharpness than the wasp, even though the DOF is small. Check the smallest details on the wasp (white spots on wing edge), they're all stretched to short vertical line, which indicates motion blur. I wouldn't call it significant, but this picture isn't razor sharp. That's why my oppose was weak only. Otherwise, I like this picture, just so you know! --Janke | Talk 06:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- IMO the focus is spot on the head and that's were it has to be. DOF is very narrow it's common for macro shots. I don't see no motion blur. Ericd 01:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 11:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)