Reason

Yet another renom. Good quality and EV, showing an interesting behaviour. Could be added to other articles as well. Countering bias against ant images. Previous Nom

Articles this image appears in

Carpenter ant, Formicinae

Creator

Muhammad Mahdi Karim

• Support as nominator -- Muhammad (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The "interesting behaviour" is not discussed, and this isn't even used as a lead image- I'm not certain about the EV here. J Milburn ( talk) 22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • For me, an image speaks a 1000 words and so the image has greater value since it shows something not explained in the text. I don't know much about ants' digestive or respiratory systems or I would add something to the articles. -- Muhammad (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak oppose - It shouldn´t have shallow DoF. The leg of the front of the image is blurry as well as the antenas. - ☩ Damërung ☩ . -- 00:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • You've been looking at too many focus stacks :) It's probably impossible to photograph an ant at anything smaller than f/11 without significant diffraction softening. They're just too small. So yes, he could get more depth of field, but he would rapidly lose sharpness. I imagine it's already down-sampled due to some diffraction softening at f/11. At f/13 it would probably have to be down-sampled to 1000px or less (to keep the same sharpness), thus barely meeting the resolution requirement. There really is a huge different between photographing a 10mm bug and a 4mm bug. We can't use the same standards for both. Kaldari ( talk) 21:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Tanks Kaldari. Couldn't have put it better myself -- Muhammad (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Support - I laughted a lot about this. That´s right, an ant is a very small object. - ☩ Damërung ☩ . -- 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Support edit 1 - Better cropped. - ☩ Damërung ☩ . -- 14:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support per Kaldari. Focus stacked images can't become the minimum standard. There are regularly cases where it isn't possible. Noodle snacks ( talk) 04:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment Not centered properly. Consider removing the rightmost eighth or so of the shot so the ant is dead center. That eighth ads little to the shot. _ Nezzadar_ ☎_ 05:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I didn't center intentionally but if you're willing to support a centered one, then I will put up an edit later today -- Muhammad (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Edit 1 uploaded -- Muhammad (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Conditional Support for Edit Yeah, it is better cropped, however I am worried about the EV. The lead shot for carpenter ant could be switched out for yours, upping the EV. Not so for the shot in Formicinae, which I think is a better pic and is already an FP. If you can get this ant in as the lead for carpenter ant I'll support that edit. _ Nezzadar_ ☎_ 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Replaced my older image with this one as the lead in Carpenter ant -- Muhammad (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support for Edit 1 per Noodle Snacks.-- Banzoo ( talk) 19:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support. Does a good job of illustrating the animal and its behaviour. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 02:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support. Good detail and subject isolation. No idea why it failed to get a single vote previously. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe it was lost in the flood. -- jjron ( talk) 13:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Promoted File:Carpenter ant Tanzania crop.jpg -- Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 10:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply