Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.06.07.-03-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim---Tagpfauenauge-Raupe.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:2014.06.07.-03-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim---Tagpfauenauge-Raupe.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 15:33:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info I'm not sure because of the stem in the foreground. But I'll never know what you think when I don't dare a try. ;-) All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)- Support visualy the stem is not so disturbing : the first time I opened the image I was so much attracted by the caterpillar that I did not seen the stem... -- Christian Ferrer Talk 05:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Info I uploaded a version with a changed crop. It can be that it looks better. If not, I'll revert it to the first version. --Hockei (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment if I may: the right stem should stay for three reasons: The other stem (unfocused) stands out too much; sheet looks unfinished, loose; the stem helps to identify the blurred in the context. I would cut off only the right side of stem (keep the bud). -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 20:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Certainly you may. :-) Thank's for your advice. You say about what I think. So I changed the crop again. --Hockei (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Seems underexposed, and of course is in the shadow of the leaf so not best lit. I don't see anything here that raises this photo above the many other photographs of the caterpillar, or among our best. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Appearance is not reality, Colin. This picture is not underexposed. This caterpillar is black. And this photo shows the animal in it's real living environment. Maybe I should take and set it on a stem into the sun next time? --Hockei (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am aware the caterpillar is black. You could present us with a completely black picture and claim this is what it looks like in the real living environment at night. So that's not a strong argument. The level of exposure and lighting are chosen to display the subject to best effect. I think neither are optimal here. But my main concern is that at FPC one needs to compare the image to its peers. And when one does that the picture doesn't stand out. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I look at a picture, see and decide if it is excellent or not and I never compare with others. This is the right way IMO. I don't consider this here as a competition. --Hockei (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hockei, the definition of this forum is: "Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons." This isn't a Flickr "fave" or a Facebook "Like!" but a serious judgement of whether this picture is considerably better than its peers and deserves to sit among other such images as our finest work. Therefore if you don't compare with others, you really aren't doing your job. The world is full of "nice" pictures. File:2014.05.25.-05-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Tagpfauenauge-Raupe.jpg is better lit, though a less interesting pose. The lighting issue with this photograph is easily resolved by the use of a reflector (even a white card would do) which is pretty standard kit for such photography. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Colin, Please stick to facts and don't suggest the people here I would be active in flickr or facebook just because of my point of view you don't like. --Hockei (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea what you are taking about. -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I said it due to your comparison of my reviews with the facebook-"like"-button. We should leave it at that. This leads to nothing. --Hockei (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea what you are taking about. -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Colin, Please stick to facts and don't suggest the people here I would be active in flickr or facebook just because of my point of view you don't like. --Hockei (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hockei, the definition of this forum is: "Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons." This isn't a Flickr "fave" or a Facebook "Like!" but a serious judgement of whether this picture is considerably better than its peers and deserves to sit among other such images as our finest work. Therefore if you don't compare with others, you really aren't doing your job. The world is full of "nice" pictures. File:2014.05.25.-05-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Tagpfauenauge-Raupe.jpg is better lit, though a less interesting pose. The lighting issue with this photograph is easily resolved by the use of a reflector (even a white card would do) which is pretty standard kit for such photography. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I look at a picture, see and decide if it is excellent or not and I never compare with others. This is the right way IMO. I don't consider this here as a competition. --Hockei (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am aware the caterpillar is black. You could present us with a completely black picture and claim this is what it looks like in the real living environment at night. So that's not a strong argument. The level of exposure and lighting are chosen to display the subject to best effect. I think neither are optimal here. But my main concern is that at FPC one needs to compare the image to its peers. And when one does that the picture doesn't stand out. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Very nice details, precious moment, ty -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 22:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Archaeodontosaurus, would you please review the new version? --Hockei (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- it's a little better but it's easy to do more. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Done Archaeodontosaurus, I increased the exposure once more. It looks quite good to me and hope it is enough now. --Hockei (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- it's a little better but it's easy to do more. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Yes it's frankly better. Good effort. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Might be slightly underexposed but only slightly. Could easily be fixed by pushing the shadows a bit from the RAW file? Diliff (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done New version. But I personally still prefer the darker version. It is a matter of taste I think. --Hockei (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
