Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sceliodes cordalis.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Eggfruit Caterpillar Moth

Thanks to a 7 image focus bracket this image shows an exceptional level of detail with all of the moth in focus. High technical and enc value make it a worthy candidate

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 21:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Lipton sale (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-20 21:45Z
• Support Fir, you've done it again. Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, ah, a perfect one. Could be a bit larger, but it's above the minimum size. --Aqwis (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral (see below) As shown by the temp file, there are some technical faults. Red, in the left corner is posturisation. Blue arrow shows a strong focus stacking seam. The turquoise box shows a suspicious line traversing all the fur of the moth. It looks like a bad stitch job. Yellow is more posturization. Purple looks like a touch-up error. Red is some focus stack problem. Orange is a large square artifact that is unacceptable. Not to mention that it is not a great example of focus stacking. And a better picture could be taken. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes well done Fcb very mature - I see you even went to the length of using my voting symbol! --Fir0002 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We all have our little moments of immaturity. Not that I didn't have a chuckle at it. Yes, I thought the voting symbol was a classy touch. It is actually a good picture, nice vivid light. I still think you ought to get some strobes. You can get a pretty nice 3 strobe set for under a $1000. I also think you are a little too afraid of diffraction, I have plenty of really sharp pictures at f/22. Anyway, I'll probably change vote to a neutral, I don't fancy these white background as FPs for lack of wow factor. I just don't feel like doing so at the moment. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Yes quite true. Well to let you on an a little secret I bought a Macro Twin Lite MT-24EX in October this year - so once I get through my backlog you'll see some shots with that. Strobes would be cool but they'd only work in a studio setting - you wouldn't be able to take them out "into the field". Well it's possible to get OK sharpness once you downsize, but full res beyond f/13 you'll be getting degraded quality even on a top of the line canon like the 180L. Basically from a sharpness point of view it's all downhill after f/5.6 and it reaches kit-lens level by f/22 --Fir0002 03:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So this was taken "in the field"? I know what you mean that you wouldn't want to haul around a multi-light set up but I guess you take your white BG with you? As for the diffraction, I trust you did the MTF tests etc. but from a practical purpose, I really care most about end use. At my 6 mega-pixel full resolution I have few problems with diffraction (both with my kit lens and higher quality 70-300 VR), maybe you see it more at 10mp but I doubt it is so prominent. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well as you may have noticed not everything is on a white background. Hence the need for in the field lighting. I didn't do the MTF tests, they merely scientifically show what I can notice see with my own eyes. I'll upload some crops when I get the chance - it's all overcast at the moment so lighting is pretty poor for most things. --Fir0002 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I understand your need in many instances for more portability than a strobe set up. In any event, I imagine the Macro Twin flash has been helpful? From what I read, they are pretty useful. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 22:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They are really good, but as with all specialist equipment they take a bit of practice to get used to - don't expect to get brilliant photos straight away you need to learn how to use them properly. --Fir0002 01:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd take that with a grain of salt. The pics would still be better than a kit-lens could perform (in terms of edge-sharpness and CA), and the key-question is would the circle of confusion be significantly larger than a single pixel (in particular in your downsized versions)? I doubt it, and as a matter of fact I have the same lens as you (on a 5D) and I'll double check it over the Thanks Giving weekend. --Dschwen 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in terms of CA it would but not sharpness - head over to photozone and check out the MTF charts. A f/22 my lens is about the 1350-1400 mark. The 180L is slightly better at approx 1400. The 18-55mm kit lens comfortably trumps this at 35mm at at a rough average of 1550. Even at 18mm it beats it beyond f/8. At 55mm it has an average of 1500 through most f stops improving as the aperture gets smaller. I'm not sure what you mean by "circle of confusion" but look forward to seeing what your test reveals. As I mentioned earlier it probably would look ok once downsized but I want an image which is sharp even at 100% --Fir0002 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me be frank here, I don't care at all about the 100% version as long as it's not uploaded. And you are basically compromising the quality of the already crippled version to have a nicer private full-version which we'll never get to see. --Dschwen 13:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than slam me for not providing a full res image (which is only due to wiki's lack of NC licensing) be glad I upload at 1600px rather than 1000px or less. --Fir0002 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't twist it please. It's not about slaming you for uploading a downsized version. --Dschwen 04:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Then what is it about? Me wishing to take high quality images not just for wikipedia? --Fir0002 07:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I could just copy+paste my statement from above where I explained it, then again you could just try and read it again above. Now with italics for emphasis. --Dschwen 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The image does not look natural at all. It looks over-processed and extensively photoshopped. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything in specific you dislike? Or is this a response to my criticism of your caption demands? Because this has had almost zero photoshopping beyond minor levels/sharpening/color balance tweaks. --Fir0002 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The most obvious one for me is the antennae vs. the body; it looks like they were made in two separate photographs that were pasted together. It doesn't "read" true. Also problematic is the uneven level of focus across the image, some places are very crisp, others are blurry, and not in a good way. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. No way that's the bug's real shadow.. is it? It does look kind of shoppy then, I see what they're saying. --ffroth 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't it look like it's the real shadow? Let me assure you that it is entirely real. I would have hoped people would have a little more trust in me. The moth was backlit with natural light and gently fill flashed to expose shadow areas properly. That is how it received that shadow. Why would I bother shopping it in? --Fir0002 00:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Don't make it personal :x --ffroth 08:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• OpposeNeutral Unlike others, I think the white bg approach is uber-enc, particularly for this kind of subject, and the shadows are gorgeous. I agree, though, that this has gone astray technique-wise. There's an inordinate amount of compressed blacks and mid-tones there which makes the more distant detail look over-sharpened, something I wouldn't expect from a 7 frame focus bracket. Focus comes and goes mid-frame, giving a smudged appearance to odd areas like mid-leg and mid-thorax. In all it looks heavily over processed. I'll not labour the point, but I would agree with Dschwen et al that you'd most likely get a sharper, more realistic and convincing shot in a single small aperture frame. --mikaul^talk 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the moth did have those black areas - they're not compressed blacks or mid tones - that's how it looks. I actually don't see any smudging at all, except a little that Fcb pointed out on the leg - seems to be more like nitpicking to me. But no matter. I'd also like to point out to Dschwen et al that f/22 would be inadequate to capture the entire moth in focus - any minor smudging you see in this focus bracket is far offset by the large amounts of OOF area you'd get at f/22 --Fir0002 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for uploading the extra frame, I can see where you're coming from. I can see the source of the blurring isn't tone compression – maybe mis-registration? – but it's no biggie really. Here's the thing: I'd personally much prefer a small-aperture shot like your blowfly one > with a little bit of natural-looking focus fall-off, than one which looks rather unreal and over-worked. I can see from the example you posted that you're on the right tracks and this sort of ambitious DoF technique may well pay off on another image (or another crack at this one.?), it just hasn't on this occasion. --mikaul^talk 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem - probably should have from the start. Well the thing is, with moths such as this which keep their wings down (unlike butterflies which raise them) you can't pull the standard macro side-on view as with the fly (which achieves reasonably DOF) because you wouldn't capture interesting detail/features of the moth. the only way would be a top down (which wouldn't show face and legs) or do something like this which illustrates the moth exceptionally well (at least IMO). So personally I stand by my using a focus bracket here as the only way possible to effectively illustrate this species. --Fir0002 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Per mikaul, It does have a smudged appearance. ^8thstar 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment' I just realized that some people may be confusing a "smudged" appearance with the way the moth actually looks - there is no sharp definition between scales or whatever, it's all very soft and "smudged". Anyway I uploaded a single frame from the bracket to show you how it looks. --Fir0002 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per mikaul and others. Meniscus (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Dschwen wasn't slamming you. He was saying he wasn't taking into consideration (hi-res) images which you do not provide. You really shouldn't reply to every single oppose. It makes you look stubborn and rude. Let people have their opinions, and accept it, whether you think they're misguided or not. The shadow looks fake, not because it is artificial, but because the area around it has been whitened. Take that into consideration for future images, and don't take it as a personal attack on your integrity. The image has blotchy focus. Perhaps you need more than 7 focus spots. I don't know. I'm not the photographer here. I just see that there are faults that are being pointed out that you are outright denying exist, and you need to work on them, and you need to find the solutions yourself, rather than swearing that your technique is flawless. This is fairly high quality image, and a good contribution to Wikipedia, but its small technical faults prevent it from getting a universal thumbs up. Don't take it personally. —Pengo 02:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, I'm (fashionably) late to this party. To be honest, I think you guys are being pretty harsh towards Fir0002/his image. I completely support his using f/11 and focus bracketing rather than f/22 in a single shot and losing sharpness (and still not having anywhere near all of the moth in focus). I agree that the antennae look a bit peculiar and 3D-like and, but I think its mainly due to the fill flash rather than the focus blending, and doesn't really distract significantly. If anything, it helps to separate them from the moth's body. Another thing that may be leading people to oppose is the fact that a moth's wing texture is extremely difficult to photograph 'accurately' and very typically ends up looking smudged, when really this isn't the case. The only thing I can think of that could improve the image is to use smaller increments of focus and therefore more images in the bracket, but I honestly can't imagine a textbook having a significantly better image of a moth. While I respect everyone's views on the image, sometimes I think that unless you've attempted to take similar photos, you aren't qualified to say with certainty whether it is a good, bad or easily-bettered shot. In the end, while we do have a base-level expectation of quality, what we as a community are willing to pass as FP does depend on the subject matter and whether it is the among best that can be offered. In this case, I think it is up there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah more frames would have been good - but with a live animal more frames = more opportunity for things to go wrong. I think I shot 10 sequences in this shoot and this was the only one which came out well (the insect didn't move). Thanks for your perspective too Diliff --Fir0002 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Diliff, I disagree with everything you say except the last two sentences, which I have to say made me think again. I'm fairly sure the choice of technique (and the resulting haloing) got in the way of the sort of pukka image we've come to expect from Fir. Ultimately though, the decision to shoot at this angle, giving a fairly unique head-on perspective, created less tech problems than it revealed enc value, so I've changed my oppose to neutral.--mikaul^talk 14:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support - This image meets the high bar that Fir0002 has set for bug porn. I'm still not sure if Fcb981's annotated version is a prank or not; I just don't see any errors there. --Sean 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was a prank... I removed it as I actually think the picture is pretty good. I tried to make that clear in the following discussion, as well as the fact that I eventually pointed out that I was neutral. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 18:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support on condition that the doubled middle protrusion on the right side of the abdomen is fixed. (Not seen in single shot so it must be an artifact). Also, this discussion has grown faaaar too long. Period. --Janke | Talk 12:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - sorry it wasn't noticed earlier! --Fir0002 22:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support. As per Diliff, a difficult, well-executed, and valuable textbook-worthy picture. Technical excellence (focus, sharpness, etc.) is there, and enc. is indisputable. --Malachirality (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support 'cause it's a pretty picture .... errr, support per Diliff. Enuja (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per Enuja per Diliff. H92110 (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Sceliodes cordalis.jpg MER-C 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)