Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Butterfly May 2008-3a.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Butterfly May 2008-3a.jpg - not featured[edit]
- Info A beautiful Small White (Pieris rapae), maybe my best butterfly shot. Yes, there is already a FP with the same subject (at least). Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The EXIF seems to have gone missing somewhere along the line ... --MichaelMaggs 20:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is the result of using a free denoising application! I included the relevant info in the picture file -- Alvesgaspar 09:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The main subject should have been entirely in focus. Barabas 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question Butterflies are sometimes hard to evaluate. When I look at this at my 2MP viewing standard, it looks either out-of-focus, blurry, or over-sharpened. Does this butterfly naturally have this type of look or is this a photographic fault? -- Ram-Man 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can judge by yourself here. I tried to shoot this species on various occasions and could never got a perfect depiction of the body. I belive the main problem is the dense fur made of very fime hair. In most of the pictures in the gallery one cannot see the individual hairs; in others (like in the present FP), sharpening the image to better resolve them didn't result well. Dowsampling isn't a good solution either and might contribute to worsen the blur. The problem could of course be solved with a "deep asleep" butterfly photographed in a studio, using a large aperture to avoid diffraction and focus bracketing. In the meantime I'll keep trying outside... -- Alvesgaspar 09:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- The problem can be solved with a tripod, a remote-control release and a mirror lockup - or - as an exception a doubleplus ultra steady hand. Question: What do you have against studio techniqes ? [1] --Richard Bartz 11:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing really, though I'm too lazy to carry all that paraphernalia around when wandering and looking for bugs. But I don't agree, as I told somewhere above, that the insect bar should be put so high that only with specialized macro/studio equipment we are able to compete -- Alvesgaspar 11:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- What should architecture, landscape or panorama photographers say ? --18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing really, though I'm too lazy to carry all that paraphernalia around when wandering and looking for bugs. But I don't agree, as I told somewhere above, that the insect bar should be put so high that only with specialized macro/studio equipment we are able to compete -- Alvesgaspar 11:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The problem can be solved with a tripod, a remote-control release and a mirror lockup - or - as an exception a doubleplus ultra steady hand. Question: What do you have against studio techniqes ? [1] --Richard Bartz 11:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can judge by yourself here. I tried to shoot this species on various occasions and could never got a perfect depiction of the body. I belive the main problem is the dense fur made of very fime hair. In most of the pictures in the gallery one cannot see the individual hairs; in others (like in the present FP), sharpening the image to better resolve them didn't result well. Dowsampling isn't a good solution either and might contribute to worsen the blur. The problem could of course be solved with a "deep asleep" butterfly photographed in a studio, using a large aperture to avoid diffraction and focus bracketing. In the meantime I'll keep trying outside... -- Alvesgaspar 09:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Focus issues are distracting. Excellent composition though. --Aldaron 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice colours, excellent composition, but noise reduction and sharpening fought each other and both lost. -- smial 10:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
1 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)