Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hornet-vespa.jpg

European Hornet


I am nominating this because it vividly demonstrates what a hornet is and what it looks like. You can make out every detail of her body, from the hair on her abdomen to the dimples on her ugly face, from the teeth on her legs to the veins in her wings. And the picture itself is fairly large to boot. The hornet was alive at the time this picture was taken. I took this. I used an Olympus C-5050 Zoom in super macro mode. Through careful use of lighting and perspective, I used a single piece of unfolded white foam board as both the floor and the background. The light itself was a 100W equivalent 6500K compact flourescent.


 * Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 08:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sensational! One of the best Featured Pics ever I think. Very well done! - Adrian Pingstone 20:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Technically amazing and every bit as vivid as you say, but I note you felt the need to mention that it was alive at the time... I agree it does look somewhat dead and that would be a problem for me.  If you live near hornets, I'd consider trying to replicate your success with a more obviously live subject if there are still a few around. ~ Veledan • Talk + new 21:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That stinks. I've never actually seen one of these outside where I can get them. It was only by sheer chance that this one flew in to my house the other night.PiccoloNamek 22:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look dead at all to me, but then I'm not an expert on what living hornets are supposed to look like. I think it's a fantastic picture. Raven4x4x 01:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my comment. It is a fantastic picture ~ Veledan • Talk + new 09:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't really care that it's dead, it can't very well be expected that an image of this quality be taken of a LIVE hornet!! However, from a scientific perspective, the absence of any scale is somewhat of a drawback. On the other hand, adding any kind of scale now would likely reduce the aesthetic quality of the image, so perhaps a note in the description of this specimen's size is enough. --Deglr6328 07:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Yeah. Cache, buddy. It must not have loaded right for me the first time and that version got cached. Doh! My bad.:) Remarkable that it was that way in both the thumb as well as the full mag. But no matter. Full support. :)— enceph alon  08:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- Chris 73 Talk 11:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- Great pic. Ericd 14:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Enochlau 23:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Dead or alive, fantastic picture. -- Cactus.man >Reply 07:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * ( + ) Support Good photo, but the insect must have either been dead or very close to it - as I find it hard to believe it waited for you to set up your lighting. Not that I consider that a drawback in anyway, so good photo and glad to see it in jpeg format! --Fir0002 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Beautiful image with stunning detail. I'm currently using this as the wallpaper on my laptop! -- uberpenguin 21:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The white foreground looks very pixelly. Can something be done about that? As to whether it's dead or alive, it may well be alive, but the very significant axial flexion leads me to suspect it was clobbered over the head with a swatter and placed on the table for the pic. :) Yes? Or perhaps you shot it the second it was in an unusual pose (but I don't think so ;)) Count this as support if the foreground can be improved.— enceph alon  04:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but what the H? Very pixelly? I'm completely open to all comments and criqitues, even negative ones (perhaps especially negative ones) but I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you mean pixellated? Or do you mean image noise? Now that can be fixed, although I don't see how much if it would show up in a white area. On my monitor, the image has an almost completely smooth gradiation from the white foreground to the black background, except for some minor color noise in the black and gray areas. There is some residual noise in the foreground, but I have to load it into photoshop and completely darken the midtones to see it. It is invisible at normal brightness levels, at least on my monitor. Man, I hope nobody else is having the same problem as you. Now I'm all worried! PiccoloNamek 04:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey there. It sounds like you might be a little upset, PiccoloNamek, but don't worry please, there's no need to be. I thought I'd simply tell you what I see on my monitor; I should have described it better. The white foreground does not have a smooth gradation. It has concentric, roughly circular layers as it heads toward the back, with the width of the layers gradually decreasing until, at the gray-black region at the back, it's hardly perceptible. Maybe it's my monitor (Dell, UltraSharp Flatpanel LCD), but I don't think so because I'm not having any problems with other backgrounds of any color, and on those images where other editors point to problems (eg. Cryptic's comment about the St mary lake photos) I see precisely the same thing. The actual wasp though is perfectly sharp and clear.— enceph alon  07:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If by upset you mean upset at your comment, then certainly not. If by upset you mean upset that there might be a problem I missed in my own photo, then yes indeed. You mentioned you're on an LCD monitor. I wonder if that could be it. I'm on a CRT right now and I can't see the problem you're describing at any brightness or contrast setting. I noticed that when I changed my color depth to 16-bit, I can see the exact problem that you're describing. However, the problem does not exist when I switch back to 24-bit color. What color depth are you running at? The fact that visible color banding appears when I change to 16-bit color leads me to believe this might be your problem. If not, then I don't know what to do.PiccoloNamek 08:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 32. But wait, I think I know what's up. Old fashioned problem.— enceph alon  08:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh! I had a feeling it might have been something like that. It's happened to me before as well. Glad to have it cleared up.PiccoloNamek 08:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. To be honest I didn't notice anything wrong with the original image, still I'm glad you could sort the problem out. Raven4x4x 08:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 03:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice. -- Solipsist 18:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

