Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wasp August 2007-12.jpg

Bee killer wasp II[edit]

Reason: A large and detailed depiction of a beautiful species in its natural habitat, adding valure to the articles
Articles this image appears in: European beewolf, Philanthus
Creator: Joaquim Alves Gaspar

Info - Let's give it a second try, after some smart editing (the new version may take some time to be shown). I still belive this is one my best macro shots, despite the less-than-optimal technical quality
Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sharp, detailed, good composition, and appropriate angle on the subject. Nice caption, too.--ragesoss (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - It's a beautiful picture, very well composed and the bokeh is excellent. But I think the depth-of-field is a bit shallow, so parts of the wasp are out of focus. Maybe something like f/18 would have been more appropriate? Luca (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Info - Taking macro photos of living (and nervous) insects is a difficult business. Yes, it would be nice to work with high shutter speeds (for sharpness) and low F numbers (for DOF) but that is typically not possibly to do in the wild. Working in the studio, with controlled lighting and motionless creatues (like in this photo) is another thing! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Yes, I entirely understand that taking macros in the wild is a difficult thing. And I think your picture is absolutely great, due to the hard conditions! :) But for an image to be chosen as a Featured Picture, in my opinion, it should be perfect (or very close to it). Question I saw in the EXIF info for that picture that you use a Nikon D80 for your photos and, for this specific one, you used 100mm focal length. What lenses did you use? Luca (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I used a Tokina AT-X 100 2.8 Macro (the old 1:2 model) with an extension ring -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support DOF, DOF, DOF! Still, it's pretty darn good. I also like the relevant flower and the lack of background clutter.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has good EV and is aesthetic. Muhammad(talk) 21:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image, and definite EV. Jor dan ^Contribs 08:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as I can tell nothing has changed from last nom - still motion blurred and lacking in sharpness and blown highlights. Doesn't seem to be any real mitigating reason for these technical flaws. --Fir0002 10:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Info - There is something wrong with the system, as the new versions are taking a long time to show. Please open the second one (which is the same as the third), uploaded in 26 September. You will see the differences -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell you've only cloned over the highlights - the essential problem with sharpness and motion blur is not fixed. In fact I'd argue this edit has degraded the image as it now has unnecessary and somewhat poor cloning - see the leg for example --Fir0002 11:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks plenty sharp to me, if highlights are cloned over then they seem skillfully done. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a good attempt at a macro shot however the standard of macro work is pretty high here. From what I've done with my macro lens I usually try to shoot at the inverse of the focal length of my lens w/ crop factored in. You're shooting with a 100mm with a 1.5 crop(at least i think nikons have a 1.5) so, 1/150 would be the recommended minimum exposure. Any chance you should have a sharper one? I give you the credit this is a very good picture especially for the outdoors but I can't give it support for that reason. Victorrocha (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware of that rule of thumb and use it ... whenever I can. Macrophotography in the wild is a struggle for sharp images (high shutter speeds), large dof (small apertures) and low noise (low ISO settings). If, on top of those constraints, we decide not to use the flash to avoid flat ligting, we quickly come to the conclusion that the light is just not enough and have to soften those requirements. We can, of course, mount a tripode and special lighting and wait for the critters. But that is not my method (for the moment). But you know all of that, of course. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Trust me, I do appreciate the difficulty of getting great macro shots, but it is a bit motion blurred, which is unfortunate. It looks great in the thumbnail but the full sized image is lacking slightly in sharpness. It is even fairly visible in the preview page. As for not using a fill flash because of the flat lighting, do you have a macro/ring flash? I'm not saying you need one just for FPC, but it would certainly help with shutter speed/DOF issues which seem to be fairly common on your macros, and would minimise the flatness you're refering to. Alternatively you could bounce the flash so that the light is more diffused? Just some ideas anyway. You don't need to set up a studio to get sharp macros. I know the bar is set fairly high, but Macrofreak and Fir0002 have shown what is possible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair though, I think this is probably my favourite macro shot of yours so far. Just that niggling sharpness holds me back from a strong support. Keep up the good work. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wasp August 2007-12.jpg MER-C 07:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]