Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zizina labradus butterfly
Zizina labradus butterfly[edit]
- Reason
- High quality macro shot of this previously unillustrated tiny butterfly (specimen shown is about 1cm). Taken in an attractive setting perched on (or in) a rose. Compares well to other such macro FPs.
- Articles this image appears in
- Zizina labradus, List of butterflies of Tasmania
- Creator
- jjron
- Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support It's a tad dark but the composition is superb. The colors of the flower stand out very well. The focus plane is well placed with only the outermost tip being out of focus. victorrocha (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose But only because I think my photo has better definition and also slightly more interesting behaviour (feeding vs static). --Fir0002 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting that you consider yours to have better definition when it's only about 2/3rds the size and mine clearly has considerably better detail on the wing scales, etc. I also notice that yours pre-dates mine as far as when it was photographed, but has only appeared on Wikipedia after I've created this nom. --jjron (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I meant definition in the fourth sense, in that my image has sharper details. Open the two in tabs at 100% and flick between them around the head and you'll see what I mean. Believe it or not I actually only just got a reply from the Australian museum with the ID of this butterfly last week and was planning to upload it in the near future. But yeah seeing this nom I figured it would be a good time to upload now to add to the discussion. --Fir0002 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- As you are well aware DOF on macros like this can be quite narrow, so it depends where you are looking. Sharpness on the details around the body look pretty similar to me, as is. If I downsize mine to the size of yours, 'apparent' sharpness will become greater across more of the beast (at the loss of some of the wing detail which yours is already lacking). It also looks like you had the advantage of shooting in good sunlight allowing you to stop down more, which should have allowed you greater DOF. You're luckier than me re the IDing, and FWIW you wouldn't have had an article to upload it to. --jjron (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah but I'm not so sure that DOF is to blame here as even the parts which are in focus aren't that sharp - what shutter speed where you shooting at? But actually no I didn't get much sunlight - the lighting is thanks to the MT-24EX! :) Fair enough on the article (and it's great you went to the effort to write it), but the article on "the blues" was in dire need of a photo... :P --Fir0002 05:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- IMO if an image purporting to illustrate a particular species can't illustrate its own species' article in some way then it's usually lacking in EV. I actually looked at 'the blues' article as well, and decided against adding my photo given that Zizina are listed under Doubtful Polyommatinae. Nah, your flash may have come in handy, but I can see from the bg that you had more light than I did - I was in a semishaded spot during early twilight, and any bg beyond the flower would almost certainly have come out black. --jjron (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how reputable a source it is but this site gives a polyommatinae ID. I might check it on Monday - I think the Hargrave Andrews library at Monash has this book which that brisbane insects site cites. But I can tell you for sure that this was taken in semi-shade (shade caused by reasonably thin tree cover - from memory AE metered the scene to be -1 to -1.5 exposure. You can tell because if it was in sunlight the white flowers would have been blown white. But regardless it is of course possible that you had worse conditions. --Fir0002 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- IMO if an image purporting to illustrate a particular species can't illustrate its own species' article in some way then it's usually lacking in EV. I actually looked at 'the blues' article as well, and decided against adding my photo given that Zizina are listed under Doubtful Polyommatinae. Nah, your flash may have come in handy, but I can see from the bg that you had more light than I did - I was in a semishaded spot during early twilight, and any bg beyond the flower would almost certainly have come out black. --jjron (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah but I'm not so sure that DOF is to blame here as even the parts which are in focus aren't that sharp - what shutter speed where you shooting at? But actually no I didn't get much sunlight - the lighting is thanks to the MT-24EX! :) Fair enough on the article (and it's great you went to the effort to write it), but the article on "the blues" was in dire need of a photo... :P --Fir0002 05:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- As you are well aware DOF on macros like this can be quite narrow, so it depends where you are looking. Sharpness on the details around the body look pretty similar to me, as is. If I downsize mine to the size of yours, 'apparent' sharpness will become greater across more of the beast (at the loss of some of the wing detail which yours is already lacking). It also looks like you had the advantage of shooting in good sunlight allowing you to stop down more, which should have allowed you greater DOF. You're luckier than me re the IDing, and FWIW you wouldn't have had an article to upload it to. --jjron (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I meant definition in the fourth sense, in that my image has sharper details. Open the two in tabs at 100% and flick between them around the head and you'll see what I mean. Believe it or not I actually only just got a reply from the Australian museum with the ID of this butterfly last week and was planning to upload it in the near future. But yeah seeing this nom I figured it would be a good time to upload now to add to the discussion. --Fir0002 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting that you consider yours to have better definition when it's only about 2/3rds the size and mine clearly has considerably better detail on the wing scales, etc. I also notice that yours pre-dates mine as far as when it was photographed, but has only appeared on Wikipedia after I've created this nom. --jjron (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Jeezy Creezy. Those are both amazing photographs. What a dilemma! Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support. The other image currently isn't in any article, so I see no problem with promoting this excellent quality image. NauticaShades 02:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support as Nautica. Muhammad(talk) 08:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support. First come, first served. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 08:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Zizina labradus-Butterfly-on-Rose SC,-EG-Vic,-23.2.2008.jpg --pschemp | talk 12:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)