Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Long tongue tachinid fly.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tachinid Fly

[edit]
Long tongue tachinid fly, Senostoma sp, feeding from a flower
Edit 1 by Fir0002, less cropping

High quality image with good enc value. I quite like the composition on this one - the whole rule of thirds thing happening! Also, and tastes may differ on this point, I quite like the angle the fly is on. And just the clarify, this image was taken at a near horizontal angle - the flower head and (obviously) the fly were at an angle.

Appears in Fly, and Tachinidae

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 09:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Unfortunate framing, no species ID, no caption, no reason for nominating picture. I really think that the nomination template should be used by everyone. Alvesgaspar 10:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is in the family Tachinidae, subfamily Dexiinae species Senostoma - hope this alleviates your concern? Is there anything specific about the framing that detracts from enc or aesthetic values? Sorry, but opposing based on me not using the nomination template is invalid. --Fir0002 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the species id. Refusing pictures which do not use the nomination template should be an automatic procedure, the guidelines above are pretty clear on that. But that was not the only or must important reason for my oppose vote. I really think that the framing is unfortunate, but maybe you couldn't do otherwise. Alvesgaspar 10:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem, although it was always there... Why? Please refer to this discussion when the template was introduced - it was be no means universally accepted and certainly not mandatory. And it really isn't appropriate for you to decided it is w/o discussion on the FPC talk page. --Fir0002 09:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No vote on the image, but I agree with Alvegaspar about the necessity of using the template-- it tells us who contributed the image (not just who nominated it, even though one can usually infer the photographer when Fir is the nominator), and the caption. Spikebrennan 14:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all, as per lengthy discussions POTD caption is not the responsibility of the nominator - it's an entirely separate project. The template is very much optional and only there to help the less experienced in how to do this. I think "self nom" probably tells you who created the image don't you think? --Fir0002 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nice colors but the insect looks oversharpened/harsh on the other hand there is no detail on the eyes and the tight framing on the top and bottom devaluates the composition for my taste. How about some EXIF data ? --Central Powers 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please point out areas which are oversharpened? Because I can't see any. Furthermore, at the res it is at they eyes are as detailed as you could expect. Framing is I guess a thing of taste - I've uploaded a less cropped version for your consideration. Why do you want EXIF? I can assure you the image is fully kosher! :) --Fir0002 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Composition could be better but I think the detail is amazing. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Template and EXIF data are both things you can add to this. It has amazing detail, not over-sharpened IMO. I think the composition is gorgeous, and 'no species ID'? I would have called it a fly. He called it a "Long tongue tachinid fly", which is good enough for me! Puddyglum 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Good enough for you but perhaps not good enough for some serious projects. There are over 100,000 species of Diptera ("flies") and maybe some thousand species of Tachinidae - Alvesgaspar 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all the reasons given by Alvesgaspar. Debivort 19:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which are....? --Fir0002 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um: "Unfortunate framing, no species ID, no caption, no reason for nominating picture. I really think that the nomination template should be used by everyone." Debivort 04:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK well I've provided a species ID, there is a caption, there is a reason, template is not mandatory and is not a valid reason to oppose. What exactly do you dislike about the framing? --Fir0002 04:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only see a genus ID. I see no caption, unless you mean the 10 words in the image thumb, which aren't sufficient. The framing is unfortunate because while it follows the rule of thirds, the subject is facing away from the center of the image, rendering the left side largely irrelevant as the eye does not go there. Moreover the top and bottom cropping are uncomfortably tight. Debivort 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are they insufficient? I hope you are aware of this discussion (which incidentally seems to have been deleted w/o archiving...). A FPC candidate does not have to have POTD caption!! But I suppose framing is a personal issue, and though I personally do not find a problem with this composition I'll respect your opinion. However I disagree with your evaluation that it fails the rule of thirds - perhaps if you look at it in that conventional way it does, but the way I look at the scene is the way it frames the edge of the flower - with the strong petal presence in the LHS fading away on the RHS and the fly curving around the fill the scene. Just my perspective anyway. And also I guess it reflects at bit the way it was behaving whilst photographing - it was circling around in a clockwise direction so it was as far right as it went (soon after this photo it started moving left) --Fir0002 09:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are insufficient because they don't include photo-specific information that the photographer would uniquely know, such as where the image was captured. No PoTD editor can come up with that useful info, so it has to come from you, presumably here. I think there was a misunderstanding. I believe this image does follow rule of thirds, at least on the x-axis. If the scene were shifted over to the left so the fly was on the left third, facing right, that would solve my x-axis framing issues. Debivort 19:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That info is in the image description page, I don't think it is necessary to add to a caption on FPC. I treat a caption on FPC as I would a caption in an article - it doesn't need to have any more info than that IMO. OK fair enough - but as I mentioned for me it works like this. Anyway thanks for your vote/discussion --Fir0002 06:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And by an interesting coincidence this just came up on my watch list... [1] --Fir0002 06:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what came up on my watchlist by an amusing coincidence: [2]. SCNR. --Dschwen 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but that is a separate issue - it is a result of poor detail on the image description page (the image is a little time biased too) --Fir0002 22:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Alright, this is seriously pushing the size requirements, the subject takes up some 1000x1000 pixels. Sharpening and downsampling an image so far really kills a lot of the quality there. Additionally, JPEG artifacts, while slight, cause even more trouble at such a low resolution (look at the body). ♠ SG →Talk 04:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's absurd! If you are going to base this off a pixel count on just the main subject, any number of FP's would fail [3] [4] [5] [6]!! Context is essential! 1600px is well over the 1000px guidelines. JPG "artefacts" are night invisible. Honestly you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to oppose this pic... --Fir0002 04:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right; I've gone ahead and nominated that squirrel picture to be delisted. As for the other three, the lion photo is exceptionally well-composed as well as difficult to take; I'd nominate that warbler picture for delisting, but it was promoted so recently that I think it'd be futile; and I really like the focus on that plover photo. ♠ SG →Talk 04:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominating an image for delisting does not justify your vote. Please read Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria particularly criteria no. 2. You shouldn't be looking to delist the warbler picture, it is a fine image and has been judged as an FP - an example with which to compare FPC's. With regards to the plover, what you're saying is that a blurred background is a worthy excuse for low res? I must keep that in mind... Without detracting from the lion image I would like to point out that since the lions make a habit of doing this given a camera and a long lens it's probably not the difficult to reproduce if you are in the area. And conversely, I'm guessing you assume the flower sprouted in my bedroom whilst the tachinid fly crawled under the door and perched on the flower motionless whilst the sun deviated from it's path to provide correct light and it just so happened that my camera was beside my bed with the correct settings all waiting for me to take the photo? --Fir0002 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the patronization, but you don't need to get so defensive. I've supported plenty of your pictures in the past. This one, however, just does not do it for me, for all of the reasons I have stated above, whether you agree with them or not. ♠ SG →Talk 20:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK your welcome to your vote and I thank you for your previous supports but an issue like this goes beyond just this nomination and we have to be careful of setting precedents which is why I am/was so defensive. --Fir0002 09:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I do also think that the nomination template is a helpful thing, particular so we know what articles it contributes to (although it isn't too difficult to see when previewing the image on the image page. It does also bug me that Fir0002 always strips the EXIF data from the images - I often like to see exactly how he's captured the images (shutter, aperture, iso, flash used? etc) and it seems pointless to remove that sort of useful information. But that said, none of these quibbles are actually about the quality and relevence of the image itself. I do think that we're probably getting close to having more than enough fly pics, but this one is pretty top notch. I know from experience how hard it is to capture a fly image with as much depth of field as this (hence being interested in the EXIF). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about the EXIF - I mean my template provides the most interesting (at least to me) information - the lens and camera. If you are interested in this pic it was ISO 400, f/11, 1/250s, diffused flash (which is pretty much the same settings I use for all my macro work). Saving for web is just the easiest thing for me for a few reasons (which may not sound like much by themselves but they add up). First SFW saves the last position you saved in, whereas straight jpg remembers the source folder. I save all my "to be uploaded" wiki work into a separate folder several folders "deep" (possibly bad filing but anyway) into my Wiki area. It is annoying to have to re navigate from a separate drive from a chronologically ordered download folder list where my originals are (you're probably familiar with the Canon download software?) The other reason is that I'm conscious of file size and the fact that the files need to be in SRGB (a different profile to that which I have my workspace set in - Adobe RGB). --Fir0002 09:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the picture is wonderful. The framing, I think, is ok as it is showing both the flower and the fly. I dont know why some people require the template, but if its so important, why dont you include it now Fir? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well primarily because I do not feel it is important - AFAIK it was created only to help newbies etc out and (supposedly) simplifying the process of nominating an image. --Fir0002 09:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Long tongue tachinid fly edit.jpg -- Chris B • talk 08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Long_tongue_tachinid_fly.jpg&oldid=647688345"