Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Asilidae Stichopogon sp.

Asilidae Stichopogon sp.[edit]

Reason: Good quality, composition and EV. The fly was only 4mm long.
Articles this image appears in: Asilidae, Stichopogon, Dasypogoninae
Creator: Muhammad

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 05:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose alt Good pic of something so small.Terri G (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original the Alt has too much brightness. I prefer that composition, though. Zoo Fari 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Quality not comparable with existing FP's of similar subjects. Poor lighting, detail and sharpness. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point out any other FPs of an insect of similar size? --Muhammad(talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not so much the overall size of the insect but the way details are shown (or not shown). See here, here and here. Difficult? Yes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Overall size of the insect does affect the details shown. With a large organism, you can move further away from the subject and maintain a considerably larger aperture and still get good DOF. For smaller insects, you have to move as close as possible, use a small aperture to get a good DOF resulting in lack of sharpness. This image is of a larger subject, maybe 1.5 inches?, this is a 9mm subject and I believe getting good details of something of this size is not very difficult. File:Mole cricket02.jpg is of a small subject but then again its a studio shot, and these tend to be better due to obvious reasons. FWIW, I think the image nominated does show good details and sharpness. The small bristles on its legs are visible even at thumbnail size! (from my calculations, the size of these bristles is around 0.1mm). --Muhammad(talk) 10:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mole crickets are actually pretty big, 3-5cm. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Somehow I read mm instead of cm. Well, just emphasizes my points. --Muhammad(talk) 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - For a subject this size (in a non-studio environment), it's pretty much impossible to get both perfect sharpness and DOF. I don't think there's any important information missing from the photo due to those limitations, though. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. I realise that the size is problematic, but better quality is possible with the right equipment. The alternative almost has the detail required but seems to be severely over exposed. I know how you feel, I've taken tons of bird photos that are not FP quality due to lack of reach. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have recovered the highlights and slightly decreased the exposure of the alternative (shown here as Edit Alt). Comments from everyone will be appreciated. Better? --Muhammad(talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the creature brown or grey? WB needs some work on one of them. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The colors of the original seem truer. I have the raw, should I bother to upload another edit? --Muhammad(talk) 17:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]