Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fritillary feeding on passion flower.jpg

Gulf fritillary feeding on passion flower
Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2014  at 05:25:45 (UTC)
 * Reason:Image clearly displays detail of Fritillary anatomy, what it feeds on (nectar from passion flowers), and how it feeds
 * Articles in which this image appears:Gulf fritillary
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects
 * Creator:Gwillhickers


 * Support as nominator – Gwillhickers (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The light is too harsh and the flower patterns "pop" too much (perhaps most importantly, the stamens), thus distracting the viewer from the butterfly. I tried cropping it tight to get rid of the flower on the right, but that didn't help much. --Ebertakis (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The name of the file and the title here is Fritillary feeding on passion flower. Passion flowers are the mainstay for the Fritillary. The passion flower is almost as much part of the subject as is the butterfly and is what distinguishes this image from most other images of the Fritillary as was intended, so I would say "distracting" is somewhat a subjective claim, as the color of the Fritillary easily distinguishes it from the flowers. However I could subdue the color a bit as it is perhaps a little on the 'rich' side. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC) -- (Done)
 * Added note : The color of the Fritillary in real life is practically a florescent orange, esp in sunlight, and the Passion Flowers are white, which are also in the sunlight. I could further subdue the 'harsh' light, but doing so would detract from the real life appearance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the light quality cannot be improved by changing the colors. Think of the light "harshness" in terms of contrast: in this image, the camera sensor was overwhelmed by the brightness of the white flower petals and the darkness of the shadows, thus resulting in a high-contrast picture where all forms/patterns dominate the image. This is bad because taking the picture from above made the butterfly form overlap with the flower patterns, and the only thing that your eye has to go with is color. I tried to lighten up the shadows in the picture to make the light look more "even", but due to the high depth of field all I did was to bring up more patterns from the background (plant leaves) thus actually making the problem worse. You could get away with harsh light in a butterfly pic if you had a rather smooth background (example) or (my preferred alternative) if you took the picture from the side. Usually this brings background distractions far away (and out-of-focus) while keeping the butterfly and the flower both sharp. Also, you then get a round or flat flower next to the roughly triangular form of a butterfly and you therefore get two distinct and separated shapes in the photo with no overlap. Having said all that I would welcome any feedback from the more experienced photographers that frequent this page both on the picture and on my comments! --Ebertakis (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insights and your willingness to be open to other comments. While what you've articulated is indeed food for thought I would only say that it is perhaps over emphasized in regards to this picture, which still has good composition and looks beautiful imo, while offering excellent detail of both Fritillary and Passion Flowers and also offers good scientific value, as it portrays butterfly anatomy, what it feeds on and how this is accomplished. I'm only hoping that any consideration of 'harsh' or less than perfect lighting isn't anything that will upstage all of these qualities. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 13:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)