Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Fly May 2008-6.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Fly May 2008-6.jpg - not featured[edit]
- Info A simple fly, in the style of our talented photographer... well, you know who. This is a female flesh-fly, probably a Sarcophaga sp. (the females of these family are not normally identifiable from a photograph). Notice the hairy arista (the bristle-like branches of the antennae), the long legs and the red eyes. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment maybe you could identify this one of mine that's been in the unidentified category for a year or so :) Mfield 20:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
NeutralIt's wonderfully composed, but it seems to lack sharpness required for this type of shot. Maybe because it was shot at f/16? -- Ram-Man 02:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)- Support I strongly disagree that focus bracketing should be required. My only concern was that in my eyes it didn't look the proper sharpness at my 2MP viewing standard. Diffraction should be invisible at that magnification, but perhaps it was over-sharpened or just blurry to start with? In any case, I stared at it for a while and realized that it looks fine at normal viewing distances and magnifications. Borderline for me, but on the right side. -- Ram-Man 22:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment f/16 causes diffraction blur. Focus bracketing can be a solution --Richard Bartz 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- No way, I don't want to turn myself into a studio freak! If this picture is viewed from the correct distance, or printed with a 300 dpi resolution, then no blur will be apparent. -- Alvesgaspar 19:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why not to bring out the best ? --Richard Bartz 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- No way, I don't want to turn myself into a studio freak! If this picture is viewed from the correct distance, or printed with a 300 dpi resolution, then no blur will be apparent. -- Alvesgaspar 19:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Ordinary subject, nothing special, no wow. On a positive note, it is quite well done technically. Unfortunately, aesthetically and compositionally it is not that much above average. Crapload 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)