Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Carolina Anole Close Up

Carolina Anole Close-up

Carolina Anole Close up

My reasons for nominating this are the same as the reason I nominated the photograph of the hornet: sheer, vivid detail. You can see all of the individual scales on his skin, around his eyes, even the expression in his eye. If you look closely enough, you can even see part of his tympanic membrane. Also of note are the cyan-colored scales near the eye. The lizard was perched on the end of my finger when I took the photograph. I realize there is already a featured picture with one of these creatures in it, but this one is pretty good too, ne? This is the kind of picture that when someone loads up and article and looks upon it for the first time, they say "Oh, look at that!". And is that what we want here?

Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 04:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can see one problem. The full-size image is slightly blurry. It doesn't appear to be motion blur. I chalk it up to a natural artifact of the demosaicing algorithms used to construct bayer filter CCD images. Here is a much smoother, (albiet smaller) resampled version:

Resampled Version, Half-size

Resized to 2000 wide and unsharpened

- It's a Macro shot and IMO it is slightly blurry out of the focus plane. There's no need of Bayer filter and CCD to explain this. Ericd 12:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. I know my camera's capabilities, and the lizard was well within the camera's macro focusing range. Anyway, the other Anole picture is significantly blurrier than this one, and it was promoted, so I don't think I should be knocked too hard for it. Oh, and for the record, I wasn't talking about blurring from a lack of depth of field, there's nothing I can do about that, I was already at my camera's smallest possible aperture. I was talking about an overall lack of definition, most likely arising from the demosaicing and anti-aliasing performed on the image. Resampling helps to remedy these problems, and the resampled picture is here is significantly sharperPiccoloNamek 12:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edit: Reading that, I want to apologize if it sounds like I'm angry. I was just trying to give my photo a little defense. I have never become angry at a critique, and I don't plan to start now, not even if every single person who votes votes "Oppose". I hope I didn't sound too unreasonable.PiccoloNamek 12:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Relax ! The focus is on the eye just where it has to be. The photo is just fine IMO, I don't see in what sense lower resolution is an improvement. However it gets out focus behind the focus plane and that's OK IMO as it adds depth to the picture. BTW My attempts in macro have proven my incompetence in handling DOF issues. Ericd 20:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When my monitor shrinks the first image to fit it properly on my screen (I'll admit I don't have the higest resolution in the world), I can see no difference whatsoever between the two images. It's only in full size (which is about twice as big as it needs to be for my monitor) that I can notice any blurryness. Raven4x4x 08:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support either version. As I explain above, the blurryness is totally invisible to me on my computer. Raven4x4x 00:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support either version. Neutrality^talk 13:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support shrunk version. The original has a tiny bit of blurring. --Dschwen 18:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support either --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( + ) Support Any version. Have uploaded another resized version with a little unsharpening in Photoshop. --Fir0002 02:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any version will suffice. Enochlau 05:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support any version. When I blow this up, I can stare at the details for minutes on end. Beautiful. Unschool 02:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is one great picture. the detail is wonderful getcrunk 02:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the first version remains the superior one.--Deglr6328 06:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support whichever version. Halibu tt 22:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:P1010027.jpg.JPG