Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mycalesis junonia-Thekkady.jpg

File:Mycalesis junonia-Thekkady.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2016 at 06:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mycalesis junonia-Thekkady.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mycalesis junonia-Thekkady.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info Mycalesis junonia, Malabar Glad-eye Bushbrown, is a species of Satyrinae butterfly found in South India. It was earlier treated as a subspecies of Mycalesis patnia found in Sri Lanka. Endemic to the shola grassland in the sky islands of Western Ghats, found continuously distributed in the surrounding lower elevations too. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 06:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jee 06:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 06:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Flash light should not be used for this kind of photo cause they cannot see the real colors, imho. --Laitche (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• In groves where no light will reach the floor even in the midday? BTW, here it is a very diffused flash compared to my old photos. Jee 07:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think they can take the real colors by using long exposure in dark places without flash ;-) --Laitche (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Laitche, there are so many differences: 1. Behavioral: Unlike other subfamily in Nymphalidae, butterflies in Satyrinae subfamily are very unfriendly and perches/flies ground level. When felt slightly disturbed, then the next landing will be inside the foliage giving no possibility to photograph them. 2. Check the file resolution. 1,920 × 1,200 vs 5,266 × 3,511. ;) Jee 12:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about behavioral of this species but it can be taken with high resolution ... --Laitche (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC) _{The point is not resolution but the colors. Flash light makes unnatural colors with this kind of photo even they use soft flash. --Laitche (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)}

• Now you compare macro with a tele, neglecting the light loss. And where we put a tripod when camera is already near ground level using the elbow as bi-pod. :) Jee 13:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• OK, let's stop the argument besides I am not opposing this nom :) --Laitche (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 09:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support High resolution, good clear photo of the butterfly. Soft shadow. -- Colin (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Mild  Oppose - You've done a lot to set the standard of butterfly pictures, and I think the level of sharpness in this photo doesn't quite meet the standard you've set. If others disagree, though, that will demonstrate that my belief about where the line is drawn here is incorrect, and that would be OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  What now I'm experimenting is to reduce the harshness of flash with a diffuser. But it requires higher ISO (250 here instead of 100). And an increase in ISO means less fine details. So the question is whether we prefer aesthetically pleasing look or micro fine details. Its difficult to mix together. (Just a friendly discussion and I'm still experimenting. Respect your opinion.) Jee 11:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I take your point. I will think about it. Though it would be ideal to combine both, of course. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ikan remember also this is an 18.5MP wildlife photo. The butterfly here is about 70% taller in pixels than File:Small heath (Coenonympha pamphilus) P.jpg which is only a 6MP image. Jee, you could also experiment with adding a little "clarity" (local contrast) either globally or as a brush adjustment -- not sure what software you are using currently and what options it has there. The butterfly here is quite low contrast, which might well be fine and realistic, but a modest local contrast adjustment can make the image look sharper and clearer. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Point well taken. I've struck the oppose vote. I prefer the current version of the photo, after the color adjustment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Note: I reprocessed/reduced the WB the file to bring back the real colors of the leaf. It seems something went wrong in last processing. Jee 16:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support------Isasza (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 18 MP is relatively high for a macro photo so I'm OK if it's not totally sharp at 100%. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --cart-Talk 18:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Note 2: I applied some clarity as Colin suggested, after referring this. Seems a great improvement (to me). I know editing too much while the nomination is progressing is not so good. But it's a good learning experience. Jee 05:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poco² 16:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera