Only picture to see (without blur and with this definition) the distinguishing features of the species. Sexual dimorphism being limited to 12 items for females against 13 for males, on the antennae.
Seule image permettant de voir (sans flou et à cette définition) les caractères distinctifs de l’espèce. Le dimorphisme sexuel restant limité à 12 articles pour la femelle contre 13 pour le mâle, sur les antennes. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Comment This image is used 33 times on 23 projects despite being uploaded on 17 July 2010. File:Bålgeting, Nordisk familjebok.png and File:Hornet-vespa.jpg are used more, but were uploaded several years ago and are not as valued, in my opinion. However, according to the metadata, the image has been processed by Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows and the {{Retouched}} tag should be added to the image description along with a summary of the changes made. Walter Siegmund(talk)22:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the author has added his image himself in the different pages and projects slightly weakens the argument IMO, but we can notice that those insertions haven't been reverted. --Myrabella (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your two points, Myrabella. While edit warring to retain your image in an article is never appropriate, it is appropriate to add your image to articles if it is likely to be judged by others to be superior to existing images and if you respect the views of other editors who may remove it. If your image is removed and you disagree, you should bring the matter to the article talk page. Walter Siegmund(talk)21:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The purpose of scientific photography is described as accurately as possible an animal or object. For many years there was the drawing to show an overall view of insects. There are early photographic techniques that allow photographs to arrive to free themselves of the precise depth of field. The technique used here is the stack of eight photographs of different focus, this technique is long and tedious but gives interesting results (focus stacking). --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support All criteria satisfied in my opinion; geotag is not required for studio images. Antenna segments may be seen clearly. Thank you for adding category:focus stacking; I added the retouched tag since the category tag is easy to overlook. Perhaps someone will make a focus stacking template analogous to {{Hugin}} for stitching. Walter Siegmund(talk)09:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
