Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bluebells And A Syrphid Fly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

[edit] Bluebells And A Syrphid Fly

A Syrphid fly (a mimic) rests on a Grape hyacinth

Edit 1 by KirinX, some unsharp masking applied, tighter crop

Reason: Close-up shot of a mimic fly. (Self-nomination; first attempt at self-nom.)
Articles this image appears in: Hoverfly, Grape hyacinth
Creator: KirinX
Nominator: KirinX

Support — KirinX 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Not a bad shot, but unfortunately the fine detail in the fly is lost. It's fuzzy - and fuzzy, too... But do keep trying! --Janke | Talk 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - A good attempt, but not quite up to FP standard (slight blur). ~~Windy days aren't the best for taking macro shots!~~ Also, FYI it's a grape hyacinth not a bluebell; these are commonly confused. --YFB ¿ 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- KirinX 18:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the implied motion blur (Windy days), but the picture should be renamed. It's an ok macro shot. But: if the fly is the subject, its to small (too little detail), if the flower is the subject the DOF is too low. Top-notch equipment like the stuff used by Mdf (1Ds + 6000$ telelens) or Fir (pretty decent macro lens) has set the bar quite high quality-wise. --Dschwen 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, it's not really motion-blurred, just not super-sharp at full resolution. Lens quality is probably the limiting factor here, although Dschwen is right about the DOF. If I'd taken this I'd be pretty pleased with it, but it's not an FP. --YFB ¿ 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to inform, it was a windy day. I did my best to avoid windy moments. And the lens/equipment is comparable to Fir's (although most likely not exceeding it). It's a Sony Alpha 100 with a Tamron 90mm Di XR II Macro lens. Not a $5000+ setup for sure, but it's most likely me and my relative lack of experience that's the limiting factor on my photos. -- KirinX 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. Beautiful. Has enough detail for me. —Pengo 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak support This is as much in principle as in the name of the photo; I don't want to alienate new photographers, nor set the bar so high as to make it impossible for anyone without a few thousand dollars in equipment to take FPs. A little less blurriness on the fly's hair (I've seen images where could make out details that small), and a more in-focus flower (multiple DOFs are a real pain, so I won't complain too much) and it might be something I could support even more fully.--Here T oHelp 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Week support edit 1 - As a matter of fact the bar HereToHelp is referring to is pretty high, not (only) because the reviewers are quite severe in WP:FPC but also due to some exceptional pictures from our talented photgraphers,like this one. Alvesgaspar 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- And I don't want it to be that high. Either version is just fine.--Here T oHelp 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Comment~~ Weak support Ooooh, I'm a big fan of Edit #1. Come up with a good extended caption, and I'll be a~~n enthusastic~~ supporter. Enuja 22:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Very nice image, but it is true, as Stevage discusses below, that this isn't better than the current hoverfly main image. Enuja 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by good extended caption? -- KirinX 00:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

From featured picture criteria:

8. Has a good caption. The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. The image description page has an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page.

That's all I mean.

Actually that's incorrect - as per this discussion captions do not need to be fit for POTD and you can't oppose based solely on that. --Fir0002 07:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! This stuff keeps changing. However, I can oppose for whatever reason I want to, and the closing admin can completely ignore me. Enuja 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - I'm torn. It really is a good photo, and I really want to encourage the photographer to take more photos and submit them. However, according to the rules, it has to contribute a lot to the articles where it appears, and unfortunately that isn't the case - Fir0002's hoverfly pic is that little bit better, and thus is in the main image position. Please do nominate other photos though, and consider nominating it at Commons:Featured picture candidates? Stevage 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Regardless of the merits of other photos, this one is both technically excellent and provides a good perspective on the subject. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Good effort, but as biased as I am, neither is close enough to the quality of the two existing Hoverfly FP's to be worthy of becoming a third hoverfly FP. The first based on comp, and second with it's improved comp suffers from a lack of sharpness and poor lighting. Sorry! --Fir0002 23:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)