Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dryadula phaetusa

Dryadula Phaetusa

Self-nominated. Created by Marumari; thought I'd take a shot a getting my first featured picture. Shows a lot of closeup detail, with a very pretty contrasting flower background.

Appears in Dryadula phaetusa and Wikipedia:List_of_images/Nature/Animals/Insects.

Support. Self-nom. --Marumari 22:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pretty composition, but problematic with macro shots at close range is the extremely shallow DOF. It's too bad the ends of the wings are out of focus. A higher resolution pic would be preferred as well. howch e ng {chat} 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Higher resolution can be done. DOF and perfect sharpness is nearly impossible to get right for a butterfly - it was already shot at f/13, 1/500 sec. They rarely keep their whole wingspan in the same plane as their body. Besides, with more DOF, there would have been a lot more of the flower in focus, which can be really distracting. -- Marumari 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, wings out of focus. —Keenan Pepper 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo. Would like it in higher res though. --Fir0002 06:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upload a higher resolution GFDL photo, if it ever ends up getting selected. -- Marumari 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cab02 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The out of focus wing tips are too irritating, even if it is technically hard to get then in focus - Adrian Pingstone 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vircabutar 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I agree that getting this kind of subject fully in focus is difficult. It's that difficulty that makes such images worthy of FP status IMO. A tip -- next time you have a chance to make a similar photograph, move back a bit from the subject for one or two exposures (assuming the subject doesn't fly off). You'll get more DOF, and you can crop out a 1000-pixel long chunk of the center to get the same kind of framing you have here. -- moondigger 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternately, you could use a point & shoot. Their tiny sensors and correspondingly short focal lengths make for much greater DOF for macro- and close to macro photos. One of the few advantages they have over SLRs. -- moondigger 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been a photographer for a long time, I know all of these things. I took the photo this way for artistic purposes, and I thought it would make a good FP candidate. I only had one moment at this shot, I don't regret how I took it. More DOF would have made this a worse shot, not a better one. If the butterfly was on a plain-colored surface or something, I would have shot in such a way to increase DOF, but not with such a possibly distracting background. I appreciate the advice, though. :) --Marumari 00:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No offense intended with the tips -- I had no idea what your experience was. However I disagree that more DOF would have made this a worse image... the background has little to do with it. The wing tips are in front of the plane of focus, not behind it... the center of the flower is further away from the camera than the butterfly, and it's in focus along with the rear wings. Whatever increase in DOF was required to get the front wing tips in focus was required in front, not back. Still, all of this is easy to assess post-exposure. It's a lot harder to do in the moment, when the butterfly could flit away any second. Overall, nice capture, and better than any butterfly shot I've ever attempted. -- moondigger 01:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agree with Marumari, the DOF is much better this way --Fir0002 08:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Stupid art - it makes everybody feel like they get an opinion! It's just not fair, that's what I say. --Marumari 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        But that's the wonderful thing about opinions: you're free to ignore any you don't agree with. :^) Seriously, I've checked out your other images on your user page and I like a good many of them, this one included. Please don't read too much into my comments about DOF. It's a beautiful image, even if I would have preferred the wing tips in focus. -- moondigger 15:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a great picture. The tips of the wings are very slightly out of focus, but I've seen pictures become featured for less. Schizmatic 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The butterfly is just a little blurry... It is a nice picture, but there are a few tiny flaws... I just can't put my finger on it. Viva La V i e Boheme 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The blurriness doesn't bother me quite as much as the low res... can we get a bigger shot? The "interesting" portions of the anatomy are just a bit too small to see clearly. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - size.--Deglr6328 01:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lovely pic. Also illustrates camouflage. Can we have the higher res version please? --jjron 09:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support more butterflies and fewer battleships. Morganfitzp 01:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]