Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Moth wing scales

Moth wing scales[edit]

This is a high resolution image taken under a dissecting microscope. I have several images of different areas of the eye spot under different magnification but this one is probably the best. The iridescent color of the scales is visible.

Nominated by: Peter Z.^Talk 05:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I know this is probably a hard shot to come by, but it seems grainy. Elephantissimo (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the grain is the actual texture of the scales, although I am not sure if all of it is. Peter Z.^Talk 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what makes an image good enough for the approval here and other places (so take this with a grain of salt -- and it would be interesting to know how that looks at this scale even), but as a reviewer, I would have liked it more if the image page offered more of a description. Suggestions for that might include downloading a photograph of the whole moth and circling the area that this image is supposed to be of. The "Other versions" attribute in the information template is a nice place to add such things. Since the reported scale of this image is so extremely different from what regular unaided eyes can see, that might need to be considered when circling the area in another image. To me, with a simple 90 degree rotation this looks like the big brushes in an automated car wash. -- carol (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a stereomicrograph image this picture is simply too out of focus, there isn't any area that is sharply in focus across the field of view. In addition it's too low dpi. However, the image would be a stunning and excellent image to the article on micrographs if you have time to orient the wing properly so that you have a level field in view, with the very tips of the scales in focus. This would superbly illustrate the limitations of a stereo microscope while simultaneously offering an excellent micrograph that shows the limitations don't interfere either with its importance as a tool or with the aesthetics of an image taken with one. I think this could be a simply stunning picture, if you worked it a bit, and it would be worth the effort. Wikipedia has some really bad micrographs, and it would be nice to have a really excellent one. This is the strongest potential I've seen so far. Also, it's a micrograph, you should include a calibrated magnification with it. --Blechnic (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As awesome as it is such a large image of such a small thing, at full size it is extremely noisy and not sharp. Will you attempt this kind of photograph again? It could be one of those really great images.... -- carol (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you really seconding this nomination, or did you just put this comment in the wrong place? Sorry, but the comment doesn't really sound like a secondment. --jjron (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - More than likely I don't understand what "Seconder" means here. One problem with my understanding is that it would take more than a few people looking at the images here and reviewing them consistently for it to make sense without a huge review of the process. Should it be stricken from the nomination? -- carol (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Seconder" as in parlimentary procedure: you second putting this up for Featured Picture Candidate. That's what this section is for, otherwise just post in comments. --Blechnic (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I apologize for my confusion -- I was tempted to move things away from here. In the days that past since I first looked at this image, I have found myself wondering if it has been upscaled. Upscaled scales, even. -- carol (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd generally advise not apologizing for confusion, it will require all of your time, and those funky trees will be abandoned to their slopes in Africa. --Blechnic (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder