Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Calliphora head 2.jpg
- Reason
- I saw this on COM:FPC and thought it was a rather incredible image. The detail is amazing.
- Articles this image appears in
- Blow-fly
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support (Edit 1) as nominator --NauticaShades 12:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. This is amazing! This takes insect shots to another level. I was already bored/annoyed with all the macro shots and the attention they get, but this just blows my mind. How was done? The lighting and color are great! The detail... sigh. Making-of please! --Dschwen 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's done using automontage microscopy. Focus stacking basically. The colors are a bit atypical for the calliphorids though, which are iconically iridescent green. BTW - Calliphora is a genus, Calliphoridae is the family. Fixed that for you. de Bivort 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Wow! --Janke | Talk 16:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support creepy. Muhammad(talk) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice, but I'm not big with the funny shading in the background. SpencerT♦C 19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Would also like to know how it was done. It has great, eerie lighting and impressive DOF. Whatever the technique that was used, it would be nice to see it replicated on other macros. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think he used this lens, if according to this discussion. Other than that, however, I don't know. NauticaShades 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I already assumed he used that lens. Apart from in conjunction with extreme length extension tubes, there isn't a lens out there capable of that sort of magnification. That lens usually has a tiny DOF at 5x magnification. I would have expected only a few hairs to be in focus ;-). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was a focus stack - apparently he was trying to recreate these images. The remarkable thing is he managed to stick the lens so close to the bug for so long with it moving! --Fir0002 08:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wow - those are even more impressive than this, color & compositionwise... --Janke | Talk 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was a focus stack - apparently he was trying to recreate these images. The remarkable thing is he managed to stick the lens so close to the bug for so long with it moving! --Fir0002 08:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I already assumed he used that lens. Apart from in conjunction with extreme length extension tubes, there isn't a lens out there capable of that sort of magnification. That lens usually has a tiny DOF at 5x magnification. I would have expected only a few hairs to be in focus ;-). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think he used this lens, if according to this discussion. Other than that, however, I don't know. NauticaShades 22:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support It's the most disgusting picture of a bug I've seen in ages. --Blechnic (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great macro shot! But is it just me or is the WB skewed to the yellows? --Fir0002 08:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Again with the white balance. Given your comment on WB on so many shots you comment on, me thinks it's your screen. Capital photographer (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think Fir has something there - just look at the histograms for R, G and B... Slightly clipped in R & G, no full B to speak of. Try "Auto Level" just for fun... --Janke | Talk 13:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed that too. Looks like somewhat monochromatic light was used (incandescent?), but I'm only guessing. Perhaps it was bounce-flashed off a coloured surface. I think the result is more artistic as a result, but possibly at the expense of colour accuracy. For an image like this, the detail and magnification is the focus (no pun intended), but it would have been nice if the colour was balanced too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the color is off. On one of my monitors it looks worse than on the others, though. Still, it doesn't bother me as far as the image, because of the detail of the bug's horrific little face. --Blechnic (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed that too. Looks like somewhat monochromatic light was used (incandescent?), but I'm only guessing. Perhaps it was bounce-flashed off a coloured surface. I think the result is more artistic as a result, but possibly at the expense of colour accuracy. For an image like this, the detail and magnification is the focus (no pun intended), but it would have been nice if the colour was balanced too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think Fir has something there - just look at the histograms for R, G and B... Slightly clipped in R & G, no full B to speak of. Try "Auto Level" just for fun... --Janke | Talk 13:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Again with the white balance. Given your comment on WB on so many shots you comment on, me thinks it's your screen. Capital photographer (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support-It is truly amazing what people can do nowadays. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support w（ﾟOﾟ）w Laitche (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Brilliant work Capital photographer (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Wow...--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support That is absolutely amazing. The detail is astounding and it is truly what an FP should be. Elephantissimo (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The edit is 2 blue/cold and desaturated IMO - the background was actual green and the scene was tinted with a golden reflector, so it should be olive-green (original) to display the real conditions and my idea of warm/positive lighting. --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Why use a gold reflector for a "scientific" subject, where a "true" (neutral) color would be more enc? --Janke | Talk 14:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I dont work under a scientific approach -i just like critters and science fiction <3 . This picture was nominated on commons first where enc does not really matter, sorry :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- What doesn't mean that I'am not curious too peek in this small worlds and the result is ok for an photographic amateur, or ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, I did vote support, above... ;o) --Janke | Talk 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Question: Why use a gold reflector for a "scientific" subject, where a "true" (neutral) color would be more enc? --Janke | Talk 14:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support. Gorgeous. I mean hideous. Where's my flyswatter? DurovaCharge! 17:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Question. Was the fly actually alive when you took this? As Fir0002 asked, if so, how did you keep it still long enough to focus bracket? Also, does the lens you used telescope during focusing at all? (In other words, does the focus mechanism also affect distance to subject and therefore magnification?) Just curious. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- This lens has no focus mechanism so a macro rail is required - where 3-4 shots are just enough to cover most of the depth for a sideview. At a frontal view it's quiet hard and the luck destines how deep you can drive the optic over the animal before it escapes --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't realise you needed to use a macro rail - that is pretty extreme.. Doesn't that mean that when you focus bracket, you're going to get parallax errors? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- No parallax errors when adjusting the camera straight oriented on the rail & moving exactly on the Z axis. There is a technique (same like cylindical pano) 2 double or triple the camera's resolution where a rotate on the optical pivot point is indispensable -or- use the cross rail by moving on the X axis (parallel pano) --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I understand why there is no parallax - Any time you move the location of the camera/focal point relative to the subject, you introduce parallax. This is even more important when the distances between camera and subject are small. For example, when you look at the moon in front of the sun, you get an eclipse because the moon looks the same size as the sun. But if you moved further back than the earth is, you would see a ring of the sun around the moon because the sun appears bigger as you move further back. The same thing would happen when photographing a fly, surely? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- IMO - parallax has more to do with a change of a angular position. With a macro rail, moving on the z axis (depth) you dont change the angle - you change only the distance on a straight line. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to draw it here - whereby i dont know if a enlargement counts as an parallax --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, but the problem with your diagram is that you essentially only have one object in the camera's view. This example is even more simple: Put your hand in front of you and hold it there. Now move your eyes closer and further away from you, and you will see that objects appear from behind your hand when you move further back, and disappear when you move closer. This is parallax too, because the angle from your eyes to the edges of your hand increases when you get closer to it. The same thing would be happening with a fly. It is hard for me to explain better than this in simple english and without complicated diagrams. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Understand - fortunately this effect doesn't become very important in 1:1 or >:1 macro photography because objects behind are lost in blur :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- That is true, but even the parts that you are trying to focus on would be subject to parallax if you focus bracket with a macro rail. To what extent, I don't know, but I can imagine it being a factor in some shots. Anyway, it doesn't look like it affected this image, or maybe you did a good job of masking the errors. ;-) That is always important in panoramic photography... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Understand - fortunately this effect doesn't become very important in 1:1 or >:1 macro photography because objects behind are lost in blur :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, but the problem with your diagram is that you essentially only have one object in the camera's view. This example is even more simple: Put your hand in front of you and hold it there. Now move your eyes closer and further away from you, and you will see that objects appear from behind your hand when you move further back, and disappear when you move closer. This is parallax too, because the angle from your eyes to the edges of your hand increases when you get closer to it. The same thing would be happening with a fly. It is hard for me to explain better than this in simple english and without complicated diagrams. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I understand why there is no parallax - Any time you move the location of the camera/focal point relative to the subject, you introduce parallax. This is even more important when the distances between camera and subject are small. For example, when you look at the moon in front of the sun, you get an eclipse because the moon looks the same size as the sun. But if you moved further back than the earth is, you would see a ring of the sun around the moon because the sun appears bigger as you move further back. The same thing would happen when photographing a fly, surely? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- No parallax errors when adjusting the camera straight oriented on the rail & moving exactly on the Z axis. There is a technique (same like cylindical pano) 2 double or triple the camera's resolution where a rotate on the optical pivot point is indispensable -or- use the cross rail by moving on the X axis (parallel pano) --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't realise you needed to use a macro rail - that is pretty extreme.. Doesn't that mean that when you focus bracket, you're going to get parallax errors? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- This lens has no focus mechanism so a macro rail is required - where 3-4 shots are just enough to cover most of the depth for a sideview. At a frontal view it's quiet hard and the luck destines how deep you can drive the optic over the animal before it escapes --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support Edit 1 Brilliant picture -- mcshadypl TC 01:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support Edit 1 An amazing image.--Polymath618 (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support This image is clearly a high quality, and a beautiful image. --Kanonkas : Talk 14:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 good macro Thisglad (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Calliphora head 2.jpg MER-C 03:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
