Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Monarch butterflies migration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Monarch butterflies migration

Reason

Educational and interesting image

Proposed caption

Monarch butterflies cluster in Santa Cruz, California. Monarch butterflies migrate to Santa Cruz to spend the northern winter. During migration Monarch butterflies travel up to three thousand miles. No other butterflies migrate like the Monarchs of North America. Even more amazingly, the butterflies that make the journey are the great-great-grandchildren of the butterflies that left the migration place the previous spring, yet somehow they find their way to the same roosting spots, sometimes even the same trees.

Articles this image appears in

Monarch butterflies;Insect migration

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 17:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting phenomenon but both images are just too soft and blurred. What happened? Looks like it didn't lock the focus properly or something. The first one also looks slightly motion blurred in addition to being out of focus.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, unfortunately, they are both far too unsharp. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you for your votes and comments,Diliff and Aqwis.
  I know some of you believe that 3 original images in a nomination are two too many. I would have deleted the first two, but they have been voted against and commented already and I do not think I could remove them now. May I still ask you to take a look at the third image? Maybe it is still not FP image, but do you find it any better? This subject was kind of difficult. The lighting was not very good (lots of shadows), the butterflies were very high up at the trees (just overhead) and in constant move. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even on the third image, I'm straining to discover any part of the image that is in focus. I'm puzzled because it seems there was enough light to pick a short shutter speed (eliminating motion blur) and get reasonable depth of field. Could be the film speed? Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I kind of believed that, if one could count the lines and spots at the butterflies wings, that means that they (butterflies) are in focus. I guess I was wrong. I'll try to take a better image, if I go to the place again. Thank you for your vote and commnt,Samsara.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Edit1. OK, I'll go against the grain here. Edit1 has been slightly downsized and sharpened. I like the interest of the topic and encyclopaedic value, and the colouring etc in Original 2 is the best for mine. I don't find the pics, especially number 2, as soft/blurred/unsharp/unfocused/whatever as others are saying. There is variation on different butterflies, but I believe that's more an issue to do with the fairly large DOF being dealt with, with some butterflies in good focus. I also take a step back whenever I see eucalyptus trees (unless I'm very much mistaken) in a setting like this. Do you know Mbz1 whether it is common for these butterflies to roost in eucalypts, because going on the article it doesn't sound like they feed on them, and I wouldn't really expect them to given eucalypts are only relatively recently introduced to California? --jjron (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Question. What aperture did you use on these shots? After having another look, it seems like you've used an extremely narrow aperture (circa f/22, see the FPC talk page for the debate over this), considering there is blur on the butterfly wings and it was shot in daylight on a sunny day (although the dark sky suggests a polarizer may have been used?). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The exif data for the one I edited says f/5.6. As Mila says, they were in constant motion, and that may account for some blur on the wings of various individuals. --jjron (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Jjron and Diliff. Jiron, you are absolutely right and the trees you see at the image are eucalypts. Ever sinse I first discovered those butterflies for myself (like 10 years ago) they always were roosting at the very same trees. It is a very interesting question what they eat during winter months. I just found here that they gain some fat and weight before migration and during their long flights to California to survive winter months and to be able to fly back. It is also interesting to know that they not just roost there, they are flying around too, which means that they could find some flowering plants to get nectar. There are always something blooming in California.
  Thank you very much for the working on the image, Jiron. I really like the result you've got.
  Thank you,Diliff, for taking your time to improve my photography skills. I've used different settings for all shots. I have not used any filter at all. It could look as a polarizer was used because in some shots I did use an extremely narrow aperture. The blur in the wings is partly due to the butterflies motion, to the wind and most of all to mine own inability to take really sharp images. I have not used a tripod. I know that a better image could have been taking. I'm not sure I'm able to take it. I tried really, really hard with those butterflies and you still do not like the result I've got. I've nominated the image because I believed that it is interesting to show so many butterflies together.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update. I do find it hard to believe, though, that at f/5.6, on a bright sunny day, you could have that much motion blur. What was the ISO and shutter speed then? According to Sunny 16, f/5.6 should correspond to around 1/1000th sec at ISO 100. ISO 400 would make it 1/4000th sec. Even at 1/1000th, I would expect it to stop the movement of butterfly wings. I mean, I recently visited the Shell Wildlife Photography of the Year 2007 exhibition at the National History Museum in London (you should all be jealous - some amazing photography there! ;-) ), and there was a photo that this shot reminded me of (although lets be honest, it isn't in the same league). It was taken with a shutter speed of 1/45. Obviously more blurred, but that was the intention. Anyway, just some food for thought. Without knowing the shutter speed, I can't really comment further, but given the sunlight, it does seem there was evidently plenty of scope for increasing the shutter speed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Diliff. Your link did not work for me and I really wish I could see the image you're talking about. I've used ISO 400 only for the Original 1 because these butterflies were in a shadow. For other 2 images I've used ISO 100 because I was afraid that the images would be noisy. I believe that in some shots the shutter speed was 1/1000 or maybe even higher. Maybe I should have used a tripod. Would it help, if I say that I blured the wings in purpose too :) --Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I should have double checked the link. Try this. Thanks for the info on the shot. Maybe a tripod would have helped but you don't normally walk around during the day with one, expecting to need it. Nevermind. I do like the photo, but as with many photos submitted to FPC, I just don't think it belongs as a FP, but it is certainly useful for articles. Oh and while we're looking at that site, I remember seeing this photo and being convinced it was also on Wikipedia. Well it turns out it wasn't the exact same image, but it was taken by the same author, presumbly at the same time. Still, one of our own made it to the Shell Wildlife Photographer Of The Year gallery. Not sure anyone else can lay claim to that. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Diliff. Your comments are much appreciated. I also like to thank you for all the links you've provided. I liked the butterflies image. It is really artistic. I've seen the monkey image you're talking about at Wikipedia too and it is a great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Just bad quality. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• add: They have a bad contrast, the colour balance is not good and the exposure ist not accurate. They seem to be blurred a bit, too. Overall impression: Much too unnatural. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)