Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caterpillar of the Spurge Hawk-moth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Caterpillar of the Spurge Hawk-moth

Original
Original
Edit 1 by Fir0002 - sharpened
Edit 1 by Fir0002 - sharpened
Reason
Fairly high res picture of a spectacularly colored caterpillar with confirmed taxonomy.
Proposed caption
Caterpillar of the Spurge Hawk-moth (Hyles euphorbiae) on its primary food source the Spurge Cypress (Euphorbia cyparissias), seen in Kriegtal near Binn, Valais, Switzerland at approx. 2000m altitude.
Articles this image appears in
Caterpillar, Hyles euphorbiae
Creator
User:Dschwen
  • Support as nominator Dschwen 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Great image and a very informative caption.--Mbz1 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice macro image. Could only be improved by the leaves being around but not in front of the caterpillar, but aside from that, excellent image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Good picture, nice colors. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Am I the only one with a problem with the flares around the leaf in the upper right hand corner? Enuja (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original. Cool colors, they really sell it. Little to no TOF problems, and I only have the slightest qualm with some flash reflection especially on posterior portion. Can anything be done about that?D-rew 01:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No flash was used in the production of this picture. Hm, that reminds me to put a SpeedLite on my X-Mas whishlist :-) --Dschwen 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Sun glare then? Still a bit distracting.D-rew 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original. The sharpening makes the skin appear dry, which may not be representative of the subject. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original. It looks like it needs sharpening, but then the other issue – chromatic noise – is exacerbated. Neither that nor slight softness are fatal flaws. In effect, corrections in these circumstances just seem to work against each other. We ran into a similar issue with that Locust image. In this case as in that one, once the dust settles, the original comes out looking favourite. --mikaultalk 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support perfectly encyclopedic! H92110 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support both: Excellent work. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the leaves in the front. -- Aka (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:CH_Caterpillar.jpg MER-C 04:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)