Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pygmy blue (Brephidium exilis thompsoni) 2.JPG

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2016 at 15:19:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pygmy blue butterfly Brephidium exilis thompsoni
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •  Info After nominating the world's smallest bird, I thought I'd try a very rare sub-species of the world's smallest butterfly. The wings as shown in the image are only 1/2" (12mm) across, so you have to get pretty close. They settle about 6" (15cm) off the ground just to increase the challenge and always rest head down which is why the image has not been rotated. There are two known sites with tiny populations and they are on Grand Cayman. This image would obviously not be FP for a normal-sized butterfly. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Charles (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice shoot. however, background noise, head is not on focus and almost all the animal (DoF problem) and position. --The Photographer 15:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I know you didn't like the world's smallest bird either... But please understand the DoF limitation in wild (not studio) macro photography is a technical limitation, not one that anyone can overcome. So you have to judge live macro images on what is possible in the field. It is probable (according to the lady who wrote the book!) that this is the best image ever taken of this sub-species. p.s. I don't understand the comment on position. Charles (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very nice image and I underestand the limitations and problems to take a macro photography and it's not personal, I love macro photography, however, in my humble opinion I consider that it does not have enough quality especially for the noise and the DoF, I'm sorry. --The Photographer 16:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, position is about the rotation degree of this picture --The Photographer 19:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See comments below. No one really interested in rare butterflies would rotate this photo. Charles (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support based on explanation above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Yes; photographing very small subject is indeed a challenge as DOF decreases dramatically when we approach very close to the subject. But I think you can try a bit more smaller aperture as 1/500 exposure is not always required as we can use our elbows as a di-pod to get some stabilization in ground level. All ofmy recent FPs are in 1/250 exposure. I've two old FPs which were taken with my old Panasonic; one is the secon smallest Blue here and the other is the smallest skipper. Both have wing span below 15mm (wing length 7mm). Honestly, I failed to make better pictures of them with a DSLR. Here I somewhat succeeded; but the reviewer declined it in QIC, stating flower is out of focus. It is difficult to explain how it is impossible in such a close distance to a non-macro photographer. (And still enough room in our works for much improvement too, with repeated attempts). Jee 16:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness, f/5,6 wasn't enough - the wings are almost entirely out of focus. --Ivar (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I could get walkaraounder wont understand macro shots. So it would be good they just try macro to see, its different. I get you have step or two reserve by EXIF, its not that bad neither. Photo of you is made by Ann, but you are stated as author. I would put that on Dropbox. --Mile (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think this is what VI is for. A noisy, mostly out-of-focus 4.5MP image isn't among our finest butterfly photos. If the subject was rotated 90° it would be a better composition, though presumably it was this way round in reality. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Colin. I very much appreciate the effort Charles put in, though. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per others. Much respect to you for taking this photo! But while rarity and difficulty can tip the scales in favor of a feature, I don't think it can tip this butterfly photo that far. To my mind, this is a really useful VI for which you deserve special praise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm very relaxed about the opposes, but it was worth seeing what everyone thinks. But for those of you suggesting rotation 90deg, that would be so very wrong as it doesn't happen in nature. Charles (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Charles, while I appreciate that this individual butterfly was upside-down and you shouldn't rotate this photo, there are plenty examples of photographs of this butterfly species in a more photogenic orientiation (e.g. this, this,this and this). So I think the orientation being awkward is a fair aspect of any oppose. -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of-course, a butterfly can perch in almost any direction; but how one posture become awkward? There is a lot of "science" behind their behavior; so their preference will change as the situation demands. They have false eyes to confuse the predators; so they may keep "real head" in position where we expect their tail. Jee 09:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Colin: 's images are all of the US sub-species. They are also of the insects nectaring and not resting, so a very different behaviour. @Jkadavoor: 's comments are spot on, but this sub-species has been observed and monitored since its rediscovery in 1985 and the authority for the perching behaviour is entomologist Dick Askew, who had been studying Grand Cayman's butterflies for 10 years, before the rediscovery. Charles (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well the first two images are on twigs so hardly "nectaring". But I've just re-read your intro and realise I failed to spot your note about "rest head down" behaviour so I'll accept your explanation. Sorry about missing that. -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per others. Rotation would be better. A photographer's treatment of a subject is where art happens. Being exactly true to nature is scientific not artistic. lNeverCry 08:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Mmmm. The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance. Aristotle. The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude. Friedrich Nietzsche. Charles (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco2 15:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pygmy_blue_(Brephidium_exilis_thompsoni)_2.JPG&oldid=227283913"