Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/IC Macroglossum stellatarum1 NR.jpg

Hummingbird Hawk-moth




This is an excellent capture of this insect taken by IronChris. Admittedly, the fact that it hovers certainly makes it easier to take, but the clarity is quite impressive. The flowers are slightly blown but this is not the focus and can be excused IMO.


 * Nominate and support for edit 2. - Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support . I realize the difficulties of capturing such fast moving wings, but I still want them to be sharp. Otherwise it's impressive. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  12:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 2. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  12:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have said that the wings emphasize the fact that they move so fast. I'm not sure exactly how fast they are but I've been messing around with photography of bumblebees and I'm telling you, their virtually impossible to freeze (the exposures have been approximately 1/4000th of a second, which is at or near the shutter spped limit of almost all professional SLRs. The only way to beat that is with using an extra high speed flash which ends up in specialised and expensive macro photography territory. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of modern DSLRs can do 1/8000s with the electronic shutter, but honestly, I have a hard time getting enough light at 1/500s, f/13... I can't imagine trying to do the same thing with 1/8000s. Eesh. --Marumari 00:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this is an excellent photograph, and the fact that it shows motion wins out, for me, over any notions of sharpness and clarity. A picture of a fast-moving object that doesn't actually show that it's moving can be beautiful, but is often static and flat. The rest of the image is crystal clear, and I find that the blur of wings adds a lot to, rather than subtracts from, the overall composition. rom a rin [talk ] 16:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support (edit 2) Look like 1/2500 to 1/3000 is needed and a lab is the only place its been done, see here and here-Ravedave 17:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. Blurred wings are not a technical fault in this instance. Great shot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the most remarkable images I have seen of a hummingbird in flight. It's eyes are in my opinion the most stunning feature of the photograph. -- AJ24 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, its a moth, not a hummingbird. ;) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be quite a feat, discovering a hummingbird with antennae :) &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-21 21:41
 * Despite what it looks like in the image, the moth's eyes aren't directional eyeballs like in birds and mammals; they're just the usual compound moth/fly eyes, but disguised as directional eyeballs. The black dot in the center is just coloring to give the appearance of an iris/pupil. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-21 21:44
 * Support Support either, wonderful pic of this moth (and the blurred wings are entirely acceptable) - Adrian Pingstone 19:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. Excellent photo. I've done some bird-watching, and repeatedly came across an entry for this moth in the hummingbird section of an identification guide... the real thing is much more impressive than the illustration. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-21 21:41
 * Support excellent pic. love the purple.--Vircabutar 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Beautifully shot. As others have mentioned, blurred wings of an insect clearly in flight is not a technical defect.  You would need specialized strobes to capture a sharp image in flight, but then you'd also need the camera to have the required sensitivity.  --Wickerprints 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 The noise reduction is best in this particular edit, although all three versions seem to have a bit of oversharpening and slight JPEG artifacts going on.  But these are minor issues. --Wickerprints 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic capture, even if it does look like a flying turd with an eyeball and three antennas. I guess if I had to pick, I would choose edit 2, although they all look pretty good. --Marumari 00:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I have never seen such a good picture of a hummingbird in flight.  Viva La  V  i  e   Boheme  17:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a hummingbird. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-22 18:37
 * Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment either version is fine to me. The difference is so small that i only noticed it after looking at the image very closely. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2, but can it go to a more prominent place in the article than the gallery? --jjron 11:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 I love the picture, there is some background noise probably caused by a fast shutter speed without enough light. I made a version with a selective blur on the background only. Let me know what you think. HighInBC 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My image seems a bit lighter, I think this is the result of the jpg reencoding and the fact that a blurred image encodes much better than a noisy one. I still like my version. HighInBC 16:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Excellent! I don't mind the wings. --Tim1988 talk 16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. OK, anyone want to tell me how the heck 1/60 of a second managed to freeze the wings in this shot??? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Angle mabye, and luck. Alot of luck I would say, 1/60 is rather slow, mabye it was cold out and the moth was moving slower. Good question. HighInBC 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh, I bet it is a dead moth held up by a stick behind it's body. That would do it. HighInBC 18:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dead... with it's wings in a fluid shape like that? How do you instantly kill a moth while it's in flight? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-23 20:01
 * You kill it by suffucation, then use wire on the wings. Just a theory HighInBC 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its been taken with a flash, for sure. I recognise the 'look'. 1/60th of a second is 'standard' for flash photography but the actual burst of flash occurs for a MUCH smaller amount of time. This method can work well, but as in this case, you will get some blur as the subject will continue to expose for the full 1/60th of a second (although the flash burst will likely account for the majority of the total light). Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, if you shot it at night, with a flash, it would come out much clearer, even at a slow shutter speed? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-24 00:44
 * Yes, but (and this is a pretty big but) the illumination from the flash would dissipate rapidly into the background and, as with most flash photography in low-light situations, the subject might be properly exposed but the background would be severely underexposed, possibly even black depending on the distance. And then theres the major problem of trying to get the camera to focus accurately in the dark! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the article: They fly during the day, especially in bright sunshine. --Dschwen 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From metadata Flash: 73. 73% power I think. The insect is frozen by the flash but the flower in the background are blurred because they probably received more sunlight. Ericd 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support That's pretty cool --Abdominator 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 impressive shot. --Dschwen 18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 Better than my attempt, and having tried, I know how hard it is to get a shot like that! --Yummifruitbat 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support edit 2 Good job. I'd like to have a go at one of those... --Fir0002 09:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 Amazing shot Lordwow 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 Ch ild zy  ( Talk 19:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no-one has commented on the edit! I'll have to move this to the 'requiring additional input' section. I can't believe no-one seems to have even noticed it... Raven4x4x 09:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all for your additional input.

Raven4x4x 05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)