Weak support It's interesting and informative, good-enough quality and considering the extreme macro a lack of depth of focus is inevitable, even desirable to distinguish salient parts of the beastie from the rest of it. I'd say a little too much effort has gone into sharpening that which wasn't sharp and not enough into lighting and composition, which has introduced harsh highlights and cropped the antennae, respectively. --
mikaultalk22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. I've left off because I'm kinda neutral, tending oppose. For illustrating eye, I would like more of the image focused on the eye.
This FP does a much better job in that respect. It might be hard to do with this particular species... It's a reasonably good closeup, but the cutoff antenna make me feel it isn't FP quality for an illustration of the front parts of Carpenter Bee. It's a good image, which does have some "wow", just not quite there in either article, unfortunately.
Mostlyharmless (
talk)
23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak support It's interesting and informative, good-enough quality and considering the extreme macro a lack of depth of focus is inevitable, even desirable to distinguish salient parts of the beastie from the rest of it. I'd say a little too much effort has gone into sharpening that which wasn't sharp and not enough into lighting and composition, which has introduced harsh highlights and cropped the antennae, respectively. --
mikaultalk22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. I've left off because I'm kinda neutral, tending oppose. For illustrating eye, I would like more of the image focused on the eye.
This FP does a much better job in that respect. It might be hard to do with this particular species... It's a reasonably good closeup, but the cutoff antenna make me feel it isn't FP quality for an illustration of the front parts of Carpenter Bee. It's a good image, which does have some "wow", just not quite there in either article, unfortunately.
Mostlyharmless (
talk)
23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply