On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:.
Here's a great example:
What an incredible image. This is a *wasp*, and we have great detail
of the *hairs* on its forehead. Stunning sharpness, and this photo
would not be out of place in a good science magazine. Yet two editors
managed to oppose its promotion to "featured" on the basis of the tip
of one antenna being obscured by an out of focus leaf fragment.
Another, neutral, came up with "An amazing detail and sharpness...with
a clumsy framing and cropping ruining an otherwise excellent picture.
... I will not support the promotion as I find little excuse for those
These would be perfectly apt comments if we were voting on National
Geographic's "photo of the year". But Wikipedia "featured
You should ask Durova about featured image reviews - she had a live one not
long ago. Photograph of a moon (Eros perhaps?) that was the best that anyone
could possibly take with current (government) technology, but it was opposed
reasons more suited to critiquing everyday items in posed situations.