Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/FlyingBugPollinating-Oct15-lighter-cleaner.jpg

Flower Fly
Was this ever a difficult image to get, especially considering my camera's less than steller autofocus ability in super macro mode. But I was determined. I set the shutter speed as high as it would go and put the camera into high speed shutter mode... and this is what I got. This picture appears in the article Flower-fly. It is the only picture of a non-bee-mimic flower fly, and the only picture of one in flight. If I only had access to a higher shutter speed, then the wings wouldn't have been blurred! Anyway, this bug-in-flight shot is a pretty good picture of a Flower-Fly, getting ready to feed from a flower. It's well-exposed, clear, and illustrates the subject very well.

I'm just not seeing it people. I'm afraid if I "fix" the image for people who think it's too dark, then it will appear far too light for people with properly calibrated monitors. I've spoken to several of my friends on AIM, and it doesn't appear dark to them. Maybe you should try this:. But, because I'm such a nice guy, here is a version where I dodged the bug. There's nothing I can (or will) do for the background.
 * Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 00:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You say 'well exposed', but the insect itself is over a rather dark background it places, it makes it hard to see properly. Other than that it's a very nice picture. Raven4x4x 09:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks fine on my monitor, although if enough people complain I suppose I could dodge it a little. The shot was exposed for the insect and the flower, and was taken facing directly into the woods, hence the darker background.PiccoloNamek 10:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Raven4x4x, it is a little dark on my 19 inch CRT monitor, I'd welcome a slightly lighter version - Adrian Pingstone 08:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response to my and Raven4x4x's comments. Don't worry, I still intend to Support the original or the lightened pic, I love both. The viewers impression of dark and light is not only a matter of calibration but of preference. Maybe I prefer lighter pics. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 19:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Both images look exactly identical to me on my laptop's LCD... Enochlau 23:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support either, seeing as I can't tell the difference between the two. Stunning shot. Enochlau 11:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oy, I can't win can I? I can tell the difference even in the thumbnails. =/PiccoloNamek 01:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I can certainly tell the difference, and I do like the lighter one a lot. I suppose this goes to show that the difference between an image being too light, too dark or just right is in the computer you view it on, or person themselves, as much as it is in the image. Raven4x4x 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Orignal version. Lightened version looks somewhat washed out on my laptop, and fairly washed out on the calibrated monitor here. --Gmaxwell 05:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support both. Raven4x4x 10:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support both; very slightly prefering the original. Unschool 04:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ( + ) Support Second version. Lighter looks better on my LCD. I can appreciate the difficulty of such as shot (I took something similar - Image:Bee mid air.jpg) --Fir0002 07:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support both. A great image - Adrian Pingstone 08:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great work! The Singing Badger 16:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I know I'm pretty late getting involved in this one but I've just added a second edit that I think is an improvement on both. I've lifted the shadows slightly (this is a subjective improvement). I did find that it looked as though the background was too dark and the bug disappeared into the shadows a little. You may disagree with me. :) Also, I ran the image through NeatImage to remove the noise (which was in the original, but accentuated when the shadows were lifted. This has made it look a lot smoother. Again, your tastes may vary. Some like the rough, raw look. And finally I gave it a very minor sharpening, as the original already seemed sharpened slightly. Personally I think this is the best of the three but feel free to disagree. Comments? Diliff 13:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've compared the second and third pic and think the change in brightness and sharpness is minor. So my vote remains as above - Adrian Pingstone 13:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The change was intended to be minor and subtle. However, the change that you didn't comment on was the noise reduction. My edit does not have nearly as much background noise. Anyway, I don't have a problem with any of them. I just thought mine was an improvement.Diliff 04:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yours is certainly an improvement but subtle like you say. Thanks for the effort you put in to change and upload the pic, I didn't intend to "put down" your changes - Adrian Pingstone 12:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 23:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 04:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

