Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hoverfly April 2008-1.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Marmelade Fly
- Reason
- Very detailed and high quality depiction of a common hoverfly species adding value to the article
- Articles this image appears in
- Episyrphus balteatus
- Creator
- Joaquim Alves Gaspar
- Support as nominator Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- How can it be an encyclopedic shot of a hoverfly if it ain't hovering? ;-) Support either; the alt is a bit prettier, but I think the original is a bit more focused. Matt Deres (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, here is a hovering one specially for you. And another one! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support original Great quality. crassic![talk] 03:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor sharpness/technical quality. Compare with the two existing hoverfly FP's: Image:Hoverfly07.jpg and Image:Hoverflies mating midair.jpg --Fir0002 09:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please let me clarify a point. Competing at FPC is not the main purpose of my work here and at Commons. If it were I would have dowsampled both pictures to some minimal size, and use more aggressive de-noising/sharpening techniques in order to improve their apparent quality. However that would have lowered their encyclopaedic value as less detail would be available, especially for printing. These are, I believe, beautiful and high quality images, comparing favourably with existing insect featured pictures. Still that was not the main reason why they were chosen to illustrate the article, enc interest was. Marmelade flies are one of the very few species of insects capable of crushing pollen grains and feed on them, and that is precisely what they are doing in both pictures. Also these particular images depict clearly those anatomic features which are characteristic of the species. The comparison with Image:Hoverfly07.jpg and Image:Hoverflies mating midair.jpg is inaccurate and unfair. Inaccurate and unfair because the pictures now nominated have more than twice the area of those examples given by Fir002. Unfair, also because their technical excellence should not be taken as a minimal passing bar for other nominations. Finally, it should be stressed that this is an encyclopaedia, not a contest of photographic technique and skill. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's all really nice and noble of you Alvesgaspar but even downsampling and sharpening this image isn't gonna save it - it simply hasn't got the quality. Go back and reshoot. The quality in macro is no different to anywhere else - do you think a building as blurry as this pic should go through? No way. FP is about the best wiki has to offer - not about the best an individual photographer has to offer. And to put it frankly this image is not the best --Fir0002 09:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fir, don't you think this is getting old? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- It would also be more fair not to use your own images when pointing out percieved deficiencies in other pics. We already know you're good... --Janke | Talk 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Probably because they were the only two hoverfly FP's on wikipedia?.. Why do you feel the need to stick up for this picture? We have plenty of insects FP's - why should the bar be bent down here? Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia but in many regards FPC is a contest of photographic skill - only the best should get through. And this should be true regardless of the nominator - or perhaps I'm being naive. Anyway back to the real world --Fir0002 09:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there are at least sixteen more hoverfly FP's in Wikipedia, but maybe these are not worth as a term of comparison. Or maybe I'am being naive and only the best creators count -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Probably because they were the only two hoverfly FP's on wikipedia?.. Why do you feel the need to stick up for this picture? We have plenty of insects FP's - why should the bar be bent down here? Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia but in many regards FPC is a contest of photographic skill - only the best should get through. And this should be true regardless of the nominator - or perhaps I'm being naive. Anyway back to the real world --Fir0002 09:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think Fir raises a fair objection. The pictures are good when viewed at small sizes but at the full size preview, appear unsharp. Perhaps you should downsample them a bit Alvesgaspar. Muhammad(talk) 19:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, but I have already explained above why I won't do it -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It would also be more fair not to use your own images when pointing out percieved deficiencies in other pics. We already know you're good... --Janke | Talk 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Please let me clarify a point. Competing at FPC is not the main purpose of my work here and at Commons. If it were I would have dowsampled both pictures to some minimal size, and use more aggressive de-noising/sharpening techniques in order to improve their apparent quality. However that would have lowered their encyclopaedic value as less detail would be available, especially for printing. These are, I believe, beautiful and high quality images, comparing favourably with existing insect featured pictures. Still that was not the main reason why they were chosen to illustrate the article, enc interest was. Marmelade flies are one of the very few species of insects capable of crushing pollen grains and feed on them, and that is precisely what they are doing in both pictures. Also these particular images depict clearly those anatomic features which are characteristic of the species. The comparison with Image:Hoverfly07.jpg and Image:Hoverflies mating midair.jpg is inaccurate and unfair. Inaccurate and unfair because the pictures now nominated have more than twice the area of those examples given by Fir002. Unfair, also because their technical excellence should not be taken as a minimal passing bar for other nominations. Finally, it should be stressed that this is an encyclopaedia, not a contest of photographic technique and skill. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support alternative. I really prefer the composition of the original, but the antennae (?) seem to slink into the background - more contrast needed here, and maybe just a touch of post-production sharpening. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support either. de Bivort 14:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support either, prefer first becasue the background is less distracting and you see the hoverfly quite clearly doing something other than simply hovering. Nice details on its underside as well. The freddinator (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Conditional support original if the picture is sharpened. Else,Oppose.Neutral --Muhammad(talk) 14:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)- The original was very slightly sharpened -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Alves, I love the original and am using it as as a wallpaper, but at full view it does not look ok. There is no additional information and hence no increase in encyclopedic value. If the image is downsampled 60-70%, it would look much better. Muhammad(talk) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Some time ago I shared that opinion with you. Now, I think we should keep all available pixels even if the picture in full size doesn't look the best. This way we also keep intact all the the other possibilities, like priting the images in larger formats or viewing them in real big screens. Remember that every picture has an optimal distance to be viewed as a whole, which depends on its linear dimensions. That happens both with paper photographs and screen images. When we dowsample a picture, information is lost forever. When we keep the original resolution, we can always adapt its size to our use. The present picture is not perfectly on focus and suffers from some motion blur? Sure, I have still to work a lot before I reach the standards of Richard Bartz. However, I insist that we should not use them as a minimal passing bar for FP. Cheers, -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree absolutely. Downsampling to increase apparent sharpness is a horrible idea which seems to have been popularized at the expense of any thought about the final intended use of the media. Sharpening is something that should be done as a final step in a PP workflow, with the final output, be that screen or printing at a particular size - in mind. Doing it earlier will introduce artifacts that cannot be removed later. If the user wants to uprez for larger printing they will be forced to uprez further and deal with artifacts not present in an original. Why would you really want to be viewing an image at 100% anyway unless you are editing it? How does it look at 50% instead?. Leave things as large as possible so that other users have the most options open to them. Mfield (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- True, but couldn't you downsample a copy and upload it as a different image? (This might help dispel the downsampling-fixes-everything myth.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- But 99% of users are never going to go searching beyond the featured image that is presented to them to find a better version. They should be able to correctly assume that the presented version is already the highest quality version available, and that means the highest resolution version, with as little destructive editing - such as downsampling and sharpening - as possible. Mfield (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Though downsampling never makes an image better, it doesn't always make it worse. Downsampling is not a panacea, but in a case like this, the image has a level of detail much less than its pixel resolution, and downsampling makes viewing the image much more convinient. Thegreenj 02:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- True, but couldn't you downsample a copy and upload it as a different image? (This might help dispel the downsampling-fixes-everything myth.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree absolutely. Downsampling to increase apparent sharpness is a horrible idea which seems to have been popularized at the expense of any thought about the final intended use of the media. Sharpening is something that should be done as a final step in a PP workflow, with the final output, be that screen or printing at a particular size - in mind. Doing it earlier will introduce artifacts that cannot be removed later. If the user wants to uprez for larger printing they will be forced to uprez further and deal with artifacts not present in an original. Why would you really want to be viewing an image at 100% anyway unless you are editing it? How does it look at 50% instead?. Leave things as large as possible so that other users have the most options open to them. Mfield (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point Alvesgaspar. Muhammad(talk) 11:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- The original was very slightly sharpened -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just for the sake of consensus-reaching, I fully support the view that images should not be downsampled to increase apparent quality. The arguments for this have been explored at FPC many times, but just to repeat: Downsampled images will always look much worse when printed at, say, poster sizes, and users should be able to assume that the "full resolution" version of an image is the full resolution version, not a downsample of the "original original". Rather, if sharpness at full resolution is an issue, images should be judged on the sharpness achievable if they were downsampled to the minimum quality still satifying the size criterion. If you don't know how to do this, you should ask. If you're not willing to make the effort, you probably shouldn't be participating in discussions here. I also think we should retroactively upsample FPs that were previously downsampled out of sharpness concerns. The term "destructive editing" carries a clear message in this respect. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support alternative --H92110 (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Hoverfly December 2007-8.jpg MER-C 11:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
