Weak Support: Great snap with amazing clarity. But the front leg seems cut (at the extreme edge). If not, i shall change the vote to SUPPORT. --
Kalyan09:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Has the head (eye, specifically) been selectively masked and sharpened? It looks as if the eye edges should be out of focus, given the camera orientation and the surrounding detail. It wouldn't put me off, particularly, but I would like to know before I vote.
mikaultalk10:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support either - Wow, the thumb really doesn't do this image justice. The abdomen section alone would get my support; it's magnificent! --
198.178.232.212:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose edit. It suggests that the leg is shorter than it really is. Wrong information is even worse than obviously missing info. --
Dschwen12:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Question What exactly was done to the edit? A very slight unsharp mask or other sharpening tool? I can't tell. Thanks. But Dschwen - I am trying to figure out what you're referring to and failing. Explain? I will support one of the two after a reply.
Zakolantern17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the self-reply. It appears that ~10 pixels were added to the right side of the image, making it appear that leg naturally ended and the green started again. Is this true?
Zakolantern17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support original Another superb pic. Cut foot doesn't bother me, it's outside the focus anyway and doesn't spoil the composition. But don't edit it.~
Veledan •
Talk17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong support original An amazing shot; I haven't seen a photograph like this for quite some time now. The cut-off foot is of secondary concern.
Chris Buttigieg09:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - The original of these two options, however I think I like the VERY slight bit of sharpening in the alternate (and like everyone else don't like the fake foot).
Zakolantern16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment It seems some people have inadvertently confessed to failing to follow
guidelines and vote on the full size image. I applied no sharpening whatsoever, the sharpness you see is only on the image description page because it has been uploaded after the new software on the commons was set to apply a mild unsharp on image description pages. Make sure to view all images at full size before voting! --
Fir000209:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Right! But it doesn't hurt to purge the old thumbnail (add ?action=purge to the imagepage URL and force a reload). --
Dschwen12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I did look at both images at full size (if you're talking about someone in particular, you might as well be honest and name them...me) I gave a pretty detailed comment for that matter. Additionally - a pair of questions - could you link me to where it describes that software feature, and explain why (I believe there is a reason, I just don't know it) I might have noticed a hint of sharpness in the alt but not the original? Thanks.
Zakolantern16:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - another great image from fir0002. I'm really not fussed about cut-off legs, you guys obviously just needed something to be picky about :)
Stevage01:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Original What a wonderfully detailed image! Subject is perfectly illustrated IMHO and background is complimentary and non distracting. aliasd·U·T09:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Support: Great snap with amazing clarity. But the front leg seems cut (at the extreme edge). If not, i shall change the vote to SUPPORT. --
Kalyan09:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Has the head (eye, specifically) been selectively masked and sharpened? It looks as if the eye edges should be out of focus, given the camera orientation and the surrounding detail. It wouldn't put me off, particularly, but I would like to know before I vote.
mikaultalk10:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support either - Wow, the thumb really doesn't do this image justice. The abdomen section alone would get my support; it's magnificent! --
198.178.232.212:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose edit. It suggests that the leg is shorter than it really is. Wrong information is even worse than obviously missing info. --
Dschwen12:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Question What exactly was done to the edit? A very slight unsharp mask or other sharpening tool? I can't tell. Thanks. But Dschwen - I am trying to figure out what you're referring to and failing. Explain? I will support one of the two after a reply.
Zakolantern17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the self-reply. It appears that ~10 pixels were added to the right side of the image, making it appear that leg naturally ended and the green started again. Is this true?
Zakolantern17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support original Another superb pic. Cut foot doesn't bother me, it's outside the focus anyway and doesn't spoil the composition. But don't edit it.~
Veledan •
Talk17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong support original An amazing shot; I haven't seen a photograph like this for quite some time now. The cut-off foot is of secondary concern.
Chris Buttigieg09:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - The original of these two options, however I think I like the VERY slight bit of sharpening in the alternate (and like everyone else don't like the fake foot).
Zakolantern16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment It seems some people have inadvertently confessed to failing to follow
guidelines and vote on the full size image. I applied no sharpening whatsoever, the sharpness you see is only on the image description page because it has been uploaded after the new software on the commons was set to apply a mild unsharp on image description pages. Make sure to view all images at full size before voting! --
Fir000209:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Right! But it doesn't hurt to purge the old thumbnail (add ?action=purge to the imagepage URL and force a reload). --
Dschwen12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I did look at both images at full size (if you're talking about someone in particular, you might as well be honest and name them...me) I gave a pretty detailed comment for that matter. Additionally - a pair of questions - could you link me to where it describes that software feature, and explain why (I believe there is a reason, I just don't know it) I might have noticed a hint of sharpness in the alt but not the original? Thanks.
Zakolantern16:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - another great image from fir0002. I'm really not fussed about cut-off legs, you guys obviously just needed something to be picky about :)
Stevage01:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Original What a wonderfully detailed image! Subject is perfectly illustrated IMHO and background is complimentary and non distracting. aliasd·U·T09:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)reply