Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Grammodes geometrica moth.jpg

Grammodes geometrica

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2013 at 06:39:22 (UTC)

Reason: I found this one on my bed at night. I managed to slide a white sheet of paper underneath it and get a shot before it flew away. Good quality, EV, lighting.
Articles in which this image appears: Grammodes geometrica, Grammodes, Noctuidae
FP category for this image
Creator: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 06:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per EV and quality. Less chance that it flies away even if you change the position of its antenna to reveal that obscured eye. :) J Kadavoor J e e 08:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The harsh lighting wouldn't matter so much if the moth was in a natural environment, but as a studio "on white" shot it is poor photographically. The strong shadow is distracting. The moth also appears to have an injured leg (missing hair covering at top) -- but I'm no expert. Compare other FP moths either in nature or softly lit on white. -- Colin°^Talk 12:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this moth is nocturnal. J Kadavoor J e e 13:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a photograph with harsh shadows clearly on a piece of paper is among "our best work" wrt moth pictures, which is the FP requirement. Great for Muhammad to have captured it when he could but it still doesn't become a great photograph. Colin°^Talk 13:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit prejudiced to expect studio type lighting when this was taken 'in the wild' but for the piece of paper. --Muhammad(talk) 15:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone commented recently, on Commons I think, that we cut the regulars more slack and let them get away with images that a newbie wouldn't. Imagine if TonyTheTiger or some other newbie submitted a moth they'd photographed in their bedroom on a piece of paper. They'd be told about the high "bug bar" and to read a book on lighting their subjects properly. Colin°^Talk 21:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that the high bug bar is what it is partly due to my contributions. I consider this amongst my best work, hence the nomination. Jkadavoor, another competent macro photographer attests to this above. Let's not compare the difficulty of shooting a mobile, living, (nocturnal) moth with inanimate items such as lenses, shot with studio lights. --Muhammad(talk)

this, this, and these all suggest an environmental shot is not as impossible as claimed. Colin°^Talk 22:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand and agree with Colin’s argument that it is good to capture live subjects in their natural environment as much as possible. But it is very difficult for a nocturnal. They rest and sleep in natural environment (sometimes under the leaf) or under roof, bed or anywhere they end up when the sun shines. The fly or wander restlessly in nights; refuse to perch anywhere. So many photographers (or researchers) experiment with lights and white papers/clothes to attract them. Here Muhammad succeeded without such tricks. (I just gone through the moth FPs; most of them are attractive day flying ones. This by Fir is focus bracketed. Only a few moth FPs compared to the greater number of species than butterflies; probably due to the less attractiveness and the nocturnal behaviour.) J Kadavoor J e e 06:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere have I claimed that a natural shot is impossible. I have merely asked this not be considered a "studio" shot just because of the white background. --Muhammad(talk) 06:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't buy the oppose reasons. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do, natural environment is always preferred, and the lighting is harsh, the side angle doesn't show full wing pattern/detail, etc... — raeky t 15:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support : Nothing much to oppose I think Mydreamsparrow (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've got no experience with featured pictures at all, but I thought i'd just point this out. Is there a reason the caption includes the location? Is this what usually happens in featured pics? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 03:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The caption here is just to let the voters know what they are voting on. For animals, the location sometimes aid in confirming the specie --Muhammad(talk) 05:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can understand why some reviewers do not like that this image was taken in a controlled environment rather than a natural one, but for a specimen of this type and size, I actually think it is better this way. If you tried to take an image of this type of moth in its natural environment, much of it would almost certainly get lost in a busy background. After all, these types of insects are meant to be camouflaged and hard to see in their natural environment. Because of that, this more sterile environment actually allows you to see much more detail than you would be able to see in a natural environment, and therefore I think the more sterile environment is perfectly appropriate in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Grammodes geometrica moth.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 71.4% support for promotion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]