Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lampides boeticus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lampides boeticus

Original
Original
Crop - a more balanced crop? (For discussion only, not for voting)
Crop - a more balanced crop? (For discussion only, not for voting)
Alternative
Alternative
Reason
High resolution photograph of Lampides boeticus (Peablue).
Proposed caption
The Peablue (Lampides boeticus) is a small butterfly found in Europe, Africa and Asia that belongs to the Lycaenids family. The forewing length of the imago is 15mm - 20mm.
Articles this image appears in
Lampides boeticus, Lycaenidae
Creator
Laitche
  • Support as nominator --Laitche 14:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Stunning, very sharp and high value. --Aqwis 14:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Support alternative More balanced composition. --Aqwis 16:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very encyclopedic. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-10-25 14:24Z
  • CommentIt's good, I don't mind the OOF antennae, but it appears over-sharpened in places and the composition/crop could be better. Fixable issues, I think. --mikaultalk 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You can see the crop version at the image page in old version. I already did, the crop was not better. This one is the best, I think :) Laitche 15:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I find the picture balance a bit awkward too, with the purple on the left and nothing on the right; you're correct that the cropped version isn't any better, but perhaps a more aggressive crop is needed so that the butterfly itself balances up the flowers. Also agree that sharpening appears a bit overdone. DOF seems a bit narrow, but helped by the fact the wings are basically flat. Haven't decided which way to vote yet. --jjron 09:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per Aqwis. There's no debate here, FP no doubt. NyyDave 18:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've seen pictures shot down for nearly invisible flaws, so I can't believe that this one is getting by. The lack of focus on the antennae is simply too much for FP status, IMO. Perhaps if only one of them was out of focus, then fine, but both are blurred beyond acceptibility at their ends, which is a critical part of the picture. And I can't see how its fixable. Look, it's a stunning picture, but "No debate"? We're supposed to be talking about FPs here. Unschool 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think debate and discussion are good thing （＾＾）／ Laitche 11:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think he meant "No debate" as a way of expressing just how good he thought the picture was, not in the literal interpretation. --84.90.46.116 13:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Laitche 13:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I meant no doubt as in the quality. The first part was "per aqwis" is which the great quality was mentioned.NyyDave 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support very clear image - especially of the scales. Nothing says an antenna needs to be in focus. The antenna are not really critical to this image - the species could be keyed easily without them. de Bivort 06:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Separa 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The out-of-focus antennae is a minor issue (and one that's extremely hard to avoid with this kind of shot). I would have cropped some from the right, but it's an outstanding shot as is.--ragesoss 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Uploaded cropped version which I think looks better (it's only low-res, so for discussion only, not voting). --jjron 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That crop makes me feel narrow and unbalance. I think space is not a nothing, space is a space. There are flowers on the left side therefore need the space on the right side for balance, I think :) Laitche 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Laitche, I reckon that if you added just a bit more of space to the side to have the butterfly stand in the center it would be a great improvement over the original (which is in itself quite good.) --84.90.46.116 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to chip in, in support of a more subtle crop, if someones is up for re-dong it. I agree the negative space is trashed with the latest crop (as it was with the original nomination) and suggest a 10% crop from the right would be all it needs. --mikaultalk 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I felt exactly the same as you. Then I cropped the image like this. But after that I felt the space on the right side is not enough. That's why I quit cropping. Laitche 20:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually like that last crop , the subject seems better centered then the original or the first edit - maybe submit it as an edit open to vote? --84.90.46.116 22:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, that's really nice now. If you're going to put it up as an alternative, maybe shade (darken) the extreme right hand side a little, to balance out the flowers; I think that's why you want more space there, but it's tonal, rather than spatial weight it needs, I think. --mikaultalk 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I concur with Mick's point - however I'm going to Support the now submitted alternative, as I find it better then the original. --Mad Tinman 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC) (PS: I'm the above anon, by the way.)
  • Info I uploaded the alternative. I feel that the original is better, but the decision is yours. :) --Laitche 05:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support original Nice detail on the wing; original has much better composition. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Peablue October 2007 Osaka Japan.jpg MER-C 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)