Not much DOF needed from this angle. --
Dschwen 13:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Outstanding angle then :) I think this is one of the most properly focused dragonfly picture we have. --
Muhammad(talk) 14:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Downscaled and sharpend != most properly focused --
Dschwen 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC) P.S.: have I still not been nasty enough to provoke some sympathy-supports?reply
Care to show any examples of the "outstanding dragonfly pictures" you are referring to? --
Muhammad(talk) 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Apart from the fact that many of the images you linked to are neither actual dragonflies nor FPs on the English wikipedia, how many pictures of this specie can you find? Criteria at commons are different and the resolution requirement here is 1000px which this meets quite easily. I hope you have not forgotten
the criteria on your time away from FPC. --
Muhammad(talk) 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
How on earth does it matter that those pics are FP on commons rather than here?! The only thing that tells me is that en.fpc is running on selfnominations from a pretty small crowd. And we were discussing technical merits. You are now saying that the technical criteria here are lower than on commons? And that makes my example invalid why exactly?! And now a mediocre picture of one in a zillion dragonfly species is an automatic FP, because it is the only one? --
Dschwen 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Commons criteria are different and that is why I linked the criteria page so you could read and remind yourself before airing your comments. Dragonflies and damselflies have different behaviours, don't tell me you don't know the difference. Why don't you just oppose and let the nomination continue so we can know what others think as well? --
Muhammad(talk) 17:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Before airing my comments? I find it rather impolite of you to try and silence my criticism. Nobody is keeping other people from voting and nobody is putting this nomination on halt. Your comment does not make much sense. As per the criteria: I simply do not think that the image is among wikipedias best work. Simple as that. You can try and Wiki-lawyer your way out of it by defining a sufficiently narrow subject scope. Be my guest. I'm done with this. --
Dschwen 19:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I just feel you are judging images here based on commons criteria (including the monkey one above). And my comment was impolite? I really liked your tone. --
Muhammad(talk) 00:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment The difficulty seemed to be contrast against a busy background. Tried an edit to improve the contrast. This is curves only, no alteration to saturation (although it seems more saturated). Muhammad, is the result sufficiently accurate? Durova412 19:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I think this is accurate but this picture is very old so I am not sure. --
Muhammad(talk) 00:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I much agree with Dschwen. That one doesn't stand so much (if at all) out of other similar pics. Composition is centered and straightforward. Background is distracting (but maybe one could argue it tells a lot about the environment). I'm surprised DOF is raised as reason to promote this, as the angle makes most part of the bug falling into focal plane. -
Blieusong (
talk) 21:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Not much DOF needed from this angle. --
Dschwen 13:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Outstanding angle then :) I think this is one of the most properly focused dragonfly picture we have. --
Muhammad(talk) 14:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Downscaled and sharpend != most properly focused --
Dschwen 15:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC) P.S.: have I still not been nasty enough to provoke some sympathy-supports?reply
Care to show any examples of the "outstanding dragonfly pictures" you are referring to? --
Muhammad(talk) 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Apart from the fact that many of the images you linked to are neither actual dragonflies nor FPs on the English wikipedia, how many pictures of this specie can you find? Criteria at commons are different and the resolution requirement here is 1000px which this meets quite easily. I hope you have not forgotten
the criteria on your time away from FPC. --
Muhammad(talk) 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
How on earth does it matter that those pics are FP on commons rather than here?! The only thing that tells me is that en.fpc is running on selfnominations from a pretty small crowd. And we were discussing technical merits. You are now saying that the technical criteria here are lower than on commons? And that makes my example invalid why exactly?! And now a mediocre picture of one in a zillion dragonfly species is an automatic FP, because it is the only one? --
Dschwen 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Commons criteria are different and that is why I linked the criteria page so you could read and remind yourself before airing your comments. Dragonflies and damselflies have different behaviours, don't tell me you don't know the difference. Why don't you just oppose and let the nomination continue so we can know what others think as well? --
Muhammad(talk) 17:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Before airing my comments? I find it rather impolite of you to try and silence my criticism. Nobody is keeping other people from voting and nobody is putting this nomination on halt. Your comment does not make much sense. As per the criteria: I simply do not think that the image is among wikipedias best work. Simple as that. You can try and Wiki-lawyer your way out of it by defining a sufficiently narrow subject scope. Be my guest. I'm done with this. --
Dschwen 19:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I just feel you are judging images here based on commons criteria (including the monkey one above). And my comment was impolite? I really liked your tone. --
Muhammad(talk) 00:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment The difficulty seemed to be contrast against a busy background. Tried an edit to improve the contrast. This is curves only, no alteration to saturation (although it seems more saturated). Muhammad, is the result sufficiently accurate? Durova412 19:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I think this is accurate but this picture is very old so I am not sure. --
Muhammad(talk) 00:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I much agree with Dschwen. That one doesn't stand so much (if at all) out of other similar pics. Composition is centered and straightforward. Background is distracting (but maybe one could argue it tells a lot about the environment). I'm surprised DOF is raised as reason to promote this, as the angle makes most part of the bug falling into focal plane. -
Blieusong (
talk) 21:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)reply