Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Butterfly midflight.jpg

Butterfly in flight

 * Reason:An enormously challenging image of a butterfly in midflight which IMO turned out quite well. Butterflies are well known for their erratic flight pattern and macro lens are well known for their slow focus so I'm quite proud of this shot. There is some motion blur but it doesn't detract from the subject IMO and instead adds an element of motion to the shot.
 * Articles this image appears in:Butterfly, Geitoneura klugii
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 08:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Today isn't April 1st, you know... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch that was a bit uncalled for :( I was perfectly sincere in my nomination - this is an exceptionally difficult photo to take and makes a valuable contribution to the project IMO --Fir0002 09:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For little enc relevance. I can't see how this picture illustrates the characteristics of buterfly's flight -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As much as I appreciate the difficulty of this photo (having read the explanation on the guild talk page), difficulty doesn't equal EV. I think it a good shot and perhaps illustrates some of the more creative photographic uses of flash and movement, but trying to illustrate the movement of the subject by blurring it is rarely going to work IMO. Personally, I'm not able to discern anything about how it moves/flies from this image. Possibly if it were taken front-on, the wing movements would be more obvious? Even then, it would probably take an exceptional photo (and exceptional perseverence) to capture exactly the right amount of movement at exactly the right position in flight to have sufficient EV and quality for FP. Some concepts are inherently more difficult to attain FP for, obviously, and this one is up there at the top. ;-) I sympathise about how hard butterflies are to photograph, though, as I've tried before too. You'd probably wear out your shutter before you were ever able to get this one just right. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't work for me either, just too blurred. I wonder how something like this would come out with some of the new SLRs that take video (?) Fletcher (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Just to pose a hypothetical, and I stress this is merely a hypothetical, would the following be an adequate shot? A stroboscopic shot of perhaps 3 frames of a butterfly flight? This would need to be done in a contrived situation ("studio" is a bit grand for what I do) and would probably consist of a single flower and a black background. Before embarking on such an ambitious project (getting the butterfly to fly straight and hence stay in focus is going to be the biggest challenge) I thought I'd get some comments... --Fir0002 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. You mean a single exposure with three bursts from the flash, I assume? Do you mean with the butterfly's movement such that each burst captures it in a separate portion of the frame, or do you mean that the butterfly will expose over itself three times? I'm finding it hard to explain. OK, perhaps this is easier. Do you mean something like this image and if so, do you mean movement such as 0 to 4, or more like 64 to 100? I think you'd need to time the strobe so that it captures the correct parts of the butterfly's movements, but ideally in separate space so that there is no overlap. Whether this is logically possible given a butterfly's flight, I'm not sure. I think if you pulled it off and the movement captured was appropriate, it would work well. It does indeed sound ambitious. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking 64 to 100 - I think the 580EX is capable of brief strobe output but as yet this is merely a hypothetical project as I haven't even seen any of these butterflies about this year... --Fir0002 00:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - I think a video of a series of pictures would show 1) the irregular motion of a butterfly's flight, 2) the flight technique and body motion of a flying butterfly, especially as compared to birds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catofgrey (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not a fan of the blur or the deer-in-headlights look because it's missing texture. I don't see the EV here either. Mononomic (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would have found this image a little less confusing if rear curtain sync was used. (or maybe it was, hard to tell) --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurring only serves to see that in fact the subject is moving. A cheap camera short video would be far better to ilustrate the movement that a high quality blurr image.--Jf268 (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

. --John254 18:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)