Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grasshopper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Grasshopper
This is the frontispiece from Insects, their way and means of living, R. E. Snodgrass. When I saw it I knew Wikipedia had to have it. Used in the article grasshopper. Dissosteira carolina does not yet have its own article.
- Nominate and support. - —Pengo 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Good addition to wikipedia. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 03:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, support! (first edit, 2nd is too contrasty) Could be inserted into other articles, too. --Janke | Talk 05:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - The accuracy, detail and size are all more than adequate. but...so drab. Kinda ruins it for me. sorry. looks like it'll pass anyway though. --Deglr6328 06:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's underexposed. White is grey. Looks like someone using that $8,000 camera made some really poor exposures (in manual even), for reproduction work! I suppose it could be adjusted for exposure in Photoshop but quality will suffer slightly. Ziggur 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I personally prefer the drab colours, but I've uploaded a brighter version. The camera work was done by the University of Toronto scanning center as part of a high volume book scanning pilot project in association with the Internet Archive. It's actually one of the better works done by the project. —Pengo 07:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer the drab version too, the the colors in the bright one look very different. It's a watercolour/drawing anyway, so I can't see how it can be "underexposed", the grey background is a legitimate artistic choice of the artist.--Antone 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- I really doubt the publisher (it wouldn't be the artist's call) would print on grey paper like that. It kind of looks like the person who photographed the page (and probably all the others) took a metering off a white surface. Camera meters assume anything it's looking at is a neutral scene equal to what's called 18% grey, so if you meter from a white surface, a camera will underexpose it and make whites grey, and colors underexposed and "drab." Ziggur 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support my edited version. Check the picture page for full editing details. Ziggur 02:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer the drab version too, the the colors in the bright one look very different. It's a watercolour/drawing anyway, so I can't see how it can be "underexposed", the grey background is a legitimate artistic choice of the artist.--Antone 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- I personally prefer the drab colours, but I've uploaded a brighter version. The camera work was done by the University of Toronto scanning center as part of a high volume book scanning pilot project in association with the Internet Archive. It's actually one of the better works done by the project. —Pengo 07:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's underexposed. White is grey. Looks like someone using that $8,000 camera made some really poor exposures (in manual even), for reproduction work! I suppose it could be adjusted for exposure in Photoshop but quality will suffer slightly. Ziggur 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose
This one is not used in any article so far. - And I can't think of any article for which this picture would be especially descriptive.That is no FP for me. Mikeo 08:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's used in the taxobox of grasshopper. It would also be used in the Dissosteira carolina article if there were one. —Pengo 09:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK, but still it is nothing special. Mikeo 14:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support A useful addition to the Grasshopper article. I like the brighter pic best - Adrian Pingstone 11:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral useful but not stunning. in any case happy to see reasonable nomiation emerge again:)--K.C. Tang 14:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support Edit #3 is great, nice and bright, removed the grey cast from the original.-Ravedave 05:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note The background is actually meant to be blue. Oh well. —Pengo 04:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
