Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Drone flies mating.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Drone Flies Mating

Drone flies mating on a daisy flower head

Edit 1 by Fir0002, less sharpening, processed in DPP raw converter rather than Adobe's raw converter

Current drone fly FP (not for reconsideration or voting)

I think this is a high enc and high quality image. True we already have a drone fly FP, but I think this is of equal quality and shows significantly different aspect of Drone Flies. And to those wishing to make a crack at a "Fir Fetish" (as one user once put it) I suggest you watch a few David Attenborough docos first ;-)

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - though if the focus is a bit further the depth of field would be better. So what's with you and mating insects... --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - very good picture. High resoloution and good colour quality. Btw Fir, how do you manage to get these pictures, i've always wondered how you spot this sort of thing happening and always get such brilliant images? --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to claim it as constant vigilance and a sixth sense, but in the case of this image it was really just luck. I just noticed an enormous fly buzzing around and followed it until it settled long enough for me to get close (at which point of course I realized it was two flies) and get a shot --Fir0002 22:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry to go against the flood but the picture seems to be oversharpened and lacking detail. Please compare with this one and this one (just to mention two excellent pictures of the author), which are clearly superior in detail and size. I think that the "insect bar" needs to be raised here too. Alvesgaspar 16:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please make sure to view the image at full res - the new sharpening feature on the media wiki server oversharpens my already sharp images terribly. As for detail I beg to differ... --Fir0002 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I always evaluate the images in its maximum resolution (this is not the first time I say this, remember?) - Alvesgaspar 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for the "insect bar" being raised, but the "insect rod" in this picture....*ahem*... — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-10 17:43Z
    • Ahem... but when you look past the insect pr0n and get down to the nuts and bolts of the image, it is pretty hard to match this sort of quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the insect bar does need to be raised. I mean, if Fir can't bother to create an assembled composite image of incrementally focused photos (especially for something as easily photographed as this subject), he shouldn't even bother submitting them as FPCs. Chicago god 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support If you've seen one photo of drone flies mating, you've seen them all. Chicago god 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This picture is oversharped and badly postprocessed --Central Powers 21:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please make sure to view the image at full size, and not on the oversharpened image description page. --Fir0002 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User has only 6 edits - four of which are on FPC the other two on his userpage --Fir0002 22:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • I always watching pictures in 100%. Its a nice picture but looks unnatural for me. On the one hand its oversharped and crisp on the other hand the hairs and details of the drones are blurry and smeared, the same happen to the flower. So this makes me say its badly postprocessed. There are good tools for smoothing oversharped pictures but you have to adjust it gently. Another thing is that you say it has enormous value. On the first sight it looks like that, but i dont see genitals nor a semen transver which would be very interesting and highly valueful. What would a entomologist need ? --Central Powers 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Again I really can't see the oversharpening you claim to see, particularly if you are happy with your flower shot. The blurriness is not smoothing at all - merely the effect of limited DOF (as I'm sure you're familiar with). I don't claim it has "enormous" value, and I don't see why genitals etc need to be seen - I mean I don't think they'd be visible would they? Case in point (and yes this isn't an FP or anything) Image:Lion pair2.jpg - would this need to show genitals etc to be consider high enc value? But anyway you have your right to your vote ... --Fir0002 07:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I dont know what my picture has to do with this but iam not the only one which the oversharping attracts attention. About high enc and genitals. ... sometimes its just a tiny rotation or a few inches to the right to show more interesting things--Central Powers 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Discussion about tagging user comments is moved to here because its not relevant to this poll --Central Powers 11:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support edit 1. The sharpness is fine. There is a lot of blur and the amount of detail is not as great as in other insect photos (e.g. your other drone fly FP on that article page). However, weak support for being user-created. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-09-11 17:16Z
• Support If this were uploaded by a less popular user I think there would be more support. I'd take it as a compliment Fir0002, people expect great pictures from you. Calibas 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support--Mbz1 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
• Support. Good shot, DOF is good enough for this sort of macro. At least the flies found a romantic and aesthetic place to mate. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm glad you picked up on that (the flower)! I was thinking of putting it in the description but thought I'd just see if anyone else noticed. It's not often you can get both the subject matter and nice background/setting in one shot. --Fir0002 09:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Drone flies mating.jpg MER-C 10:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)