Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 05:43:17 (UTC)
Reason
A stunningly-well-done microscopic shot, about as good as you could expect. Shows the typical behaviour of the louse gripping the hairs. Saw this on WT:FPC, and had to nominate this, despite it being a lousy picture (ba-dum-TISH).
Reluctant oppose A decent picture but the focus stacking is not done well so there are quite a few parallax errors on the louse and the hair. --Muhammad(talk)06:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two to four ghost images of various hairs don't bother me at all, although they obviously bother some others. Eliminating the ghosts wouldn't bother me either, since your object would be to enhance the truth of the image, rather than trying to add something which is not there. I would definitely hesitate at adding hair extensions to connect hair fragments that apparently do not connect to the louse. That form of editing would go into the category of "imaginative extrapolation" which is not acceptable. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more the ones that are obviously meant to go *under* the louse, but fade out as they approach it due to poor masking of the focus stack. Adam Cuerden(talk)21:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see significant errors on the beastie itself. I can ignore the issues with the hair. The EV is very high. Perhaps a slight crop off the LHS would lose the worst of the errors there. Adam, I don't see how the hair can be "fixed" as the main odd effect seems (to me) to be the abrupt loss of focus in front of and behind the animal, making hairs "disappear". Colin°Talk19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could extend the hair up to the animal, so it didn't disappear. I'd have to try it to see how good the effect was, but I'd like to know whether doing so would be considered problematic first. Adam Cuerden(talk)20:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]