Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mountain Grasshopper

Spotted Mountain Grasshopper[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 04:15:09 (UTC)

Articles in which this image appears: Pyrgomorphoidea, I haven't created an article before so be sure to check over it
FP category for this image: insect
Creator: Benjamint 04:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Benjamint 04:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for quality, the article, uh, really needs work. --I'ḏ♥One 04:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article looks OK to me. We have plenty of taxonomic stubs. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sigh, there is a patteren. Like the image above I'm not quite thrilled by the lighting (undiffused flash I presume). The specular highlights are distracting from the pattern of the grasshopper. And this image is even smaller. At 1.6MP I cannot possibly support it, especially given that the image is already padded with subject-free area on the left and the right. It is 2010. What reasons could there be to upload such small sizes... ...ok, forget about that, but what reasons could there be to label such small images as Wikipedias best or outstanding? If anything this only discourages people from uploading reasonably up-to-date resolutions. --Dschwen 18:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bigger≠Better, I don't understand why you think we should only feature posters and blow outs. If an image is good and valuable, it's good and valuable. --I'ḏ♥One 19:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is good and valuable then nominate it at WP:VPC. Featured pictures should be outstanding quality wise. And those small teaser-size images aren't. --Dschwen 20:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Dschwen. We have come to expect better. We have some OUTSTANDING insect photography, and to mark this as equally good is simply not fair to the stronger images. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Dschwen, I am not too pleased with the lighting and I find the background leaves distracting. IMO f/11 without flash would have worked better --Muhammad(talk) 21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments above. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These were taken before I realized how detrimental diffraction can be at small apertures unfortunately, from what I can remember the main lighting was just the harsh Australian sunlight. Advice? Benjamint 23:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an umbrella held by an assistant just above the insect could help with the diffusion. My little bro or sis usually comes in handy in such situations. A wasp or fly may move away but grasshoppers are usually more relaxed. --Muhammad(talk) 14:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've got your own assistants :-) --Dschwen 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At ISO 50 (think 5Dii can do this) and f11 or something you could probably get the sun perhaps two stops down from a flash with a softbox on it at sync speed. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]