Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Honeydew (secretion)

Honeydew (secretion)[edit]

I took this photograph myself. This image has been placed on both the Ant and Honeydew (secretion) pages, as I could not find suitably representative images. The image is a bit noisy due to ISO 800, and was taken handheld at f/2.8 (hence the very shallow DOF) but I would like geenral feedback. I believe the technical shortcomings are acceptable considering the high level of magnification and lighting, and the clear depicion of honeydew.

UPDATE: Please see updated version (Edit 1, below original) which meets the minimum resolution requirements, and with minial noise processing. Problem is, with my software (GIMP), any additional noise removal starts to remove vital detail.

Nominate and support. Dawidl 10:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Sharpness is not perfect, but enough to make an impressing picture that is focused on the important details. --Waugsberg 08:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very nice capture, but it's too small (see WP:WIAFP). It may be possible to reduce the noise in post-processing, but I'm not an expert at that. howch e ng {chat} 16:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved this peer review from Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Honeydew→Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Honeydew (secretion) to reflect the necessary disambiguation of the page Honeydew (secretion). I apologize if this was not the right thing to do. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any concerns. --Iamunknown 16:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is incredibly artistic, but I'm less sure on the encyclopedic merits. The depth of field/focus puts the droplet in focus, but not really the aphid. Combined with the backlighting ... it’s beautiful, but what is going on is a little obscured. Definitely better than no picture at all encyclopedically, but I’m not sure of its chances at FP. Spyforthemoon 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder: