Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013.04.24.-05-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Großer Wollschweber im Flug.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:2013.04.24.-05-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim-Großer Wollschweber im Flug.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2013 at 05:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Me too, but we are apparently the only ones. ;-) Thanks for reviewing. --Hockei (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info The insect was standing in the air for a few seconds without moving. Again and again almost on the same place. It showed a territorial behavior. It was a patience game. Autofocus didn't work, so I did it manually. The first shots without flash were very blurry. Unfortunately because I was closer to it. :-( The light was not optimal for aperture f10. The sun was already low and it was shady on this spot. With flash I was able to capture it in the right moment. More I can't say. --Hockei (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poco, I think you noticed my comment on the other version. They float in the air more than one minute in the same location. I think some insects bask while flying. JKadavoor Jee 15:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose For sure: Such a shot is technically challenging. Nonetheless the photo itself is imho not good enough for FP: The main subject is VERY quite small, level of detail is not convincing, the background is unsettled and due to the long exposure time there are (contrary to Pocos sayings) remarkable movement artetfacts. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you for your reviewing and your statement. Your opinion is OK. But let me say, what I think. I cannot agree that the insect is VERY small, sorry. And the "remarkable movement artetfacts" are not that bad I think. It gives the picture a certain dynamics. Due to the backround it has a good 3-d-effect. The distance to the gras was about one meter. --Hockei (talk)
OK, let us say "quite" small. For me too small to be the main object of the shot. Don't worry about my review, I tried to be as objective as possible. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worry. It's just an exchange of views. Everyone wants an objective assessment and me too. --Hockei (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, but there are other animals with a different behavior and therefore it is a comparison of apples and oranges in my opinion. And the last one is not flying. --Hockei (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we are comparing oranges with apples when considering Richard's picture. But not the others, in which the critters have a flying behavior similar to this one. The problem of your photo is quality, which is well below expected from a FP. I'm referring to detail, lighting and sharpness. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bee fly is a bee mimic; not a bee or hoverfly. Although they mimic the shape and behavior of bees, there is much difference. They are very slender (auto focus on a slender subject is very difficult) and their legs are lean and lengthy like a crane-fly. Their flight is very weak and slow compared to bees. Possibly the resemblance is aposematic, affording the adults some protection from predators. Perhaps Notafly can give a better explanation than me. JKadavoor Jee 09:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:2013.04.24.-05-Kirschgartshaeuser_Schlaege_Mannheim-Großer_Wollschweber_im_Flug.jpg&oldid=121849570"