Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bullant head detail.jpg

Bullant Head Detail
A highly detailed shot of the vicious jaws of an Australian Bullant - let me tell you getting close enough to photograph this took some guts! ;-)

Appears Ant, Jaw, Myrmecia, Mandible (arthropod) and Insect mouthparts


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional support alternative 1 — needs caption.--Svetovid (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stand back everyone... --jjron (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * or put on asbestos suits and watch the spectacle... --Dschwen 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...enjoy --Fir0002 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The caption of Alternative 1 is the same as that of the original image. If you are referring to the "need" of an article rehash (aka the "proposed caption") refer to this page: FPC captions --Fir0002 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Don't you see a live millipede in the backgroung of alternative 1? --Cynops3 (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is - but that's the thing about shooting in the wild you don't get much control over the background etc. --Fir0002 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * support for both. Just how pictures must be. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 21:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Very nice shot, must get Fir to give him one of those ant Transmogrification potions so he can get shots like this. Cat-five - talk 06:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose original: Antennae out of focus (again). Weak oppose alternative for obscuring foreground object. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is simply not fair - you've got to understand the limitations of extreme macro photography. The only way (and no even shooting at f/22 wouldn't have got the antennae in focus) would be to use a focus stack which would be impossible on a live ant without killing it first. And killing it is likely to leave it in a crumpled heap which can't be photographed! --Fir0002 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the problem is - you managed it perfectly well in the second shot, which I would support if it weren't for the foreground object. It's clearly not a technical limitation. Furthermore, if you feel you absolutely need to immobilise the ant, there are ethically sound ways of doing that, which also don't affect the appearance of the ant. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't understand. The first image is taken from a more or less to down perspective - the second from the side. As you can see from the second, the ant holds his antennae quite high and they extend a fair way away from his jaws. The technical limitations of macro photography limited how "deep" the focus is - there in lies the problem. And so in the first image the antennae fall outside the depth of the focus. In the second image - taken from a more side on perspective the antennae lies in the same focal plane as the jaws as it is roughly perpendicular to them. Could you suggest a ethically sound way? Putting ants in the freezer doesn't work - trust me I've tried (they crumple up) --Fir0002 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not terribly relevant to this nomination, but have you tried putting ants (not this group, I'm sure!) in the refrigerator? Enuja  (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have - that's what I was referring to when I said I'd tried using a freezer, I didn't mean I'd killed it in the freezer (I'm not hugely fussed by I don't like the idea of killing insects just for photos - I prefer a catch and release :)) I meant I slowed it down. The fridge isn't cold enough (4 degrees?) to slow insects down quickly - you'd need to leave them in there for a few hours. So when I shoot in the studio (ie a white piece of photo paper on the kitchen table ;)) I usually give insects 15mins in the freezer before shooting. The problem with ants is that they curl up when they're cold and you can't get them in a semi-natural pose until they start becoming active again (at which point you can't do focus brackets etc). --Fir0002 03:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many ways of doing it. One is to glue them to the substrate by the thorax. Depending on how you do this, it may slow the ant down rather than stop it. Make sure it's the thorax (chest) otherwise it can't breathe. You can also put CO2 in a container with the ant, which will slowly put it to sleep. They're hardy critters, but make sure you remove it when you're done; the ant should recover. (Point to note: CO2 is heavier than the mixture that is air, so you can pour it into a container and then put a lid on. The CO2 will only slowly diffuse when you open the container, and the ant will slowly wake up.) Alcohol vapour will do a similar job, but may be less easy to use. Alcohol does kill insects if they catch too high a dose (as does CO2 if you leave them for too long). My personal preference would be glue, but you'll need pincers to hold the ant, and small scissors or a scalpel to remove the glue and set the ant free. Depending on how the legs are attached, using permanent glue may impair the ant's ability to walk from that point on. For maximum ethics you'd use a water-soluble glue so you can just wash it off later, but these are generally slow to dry, so won't stick in a hurry. HTH.
 * As for the focal plane, I still don't find the argument compelling as the antennae seem to be as far off to the side as upwards. Part of the problem may stem from the fact that you refer to it as "head detail". It's a good enough depiction of the jaws, but for the head, it's incomplete. In fact, in one article, its caption reads "head and mandibles". If we can focus on the fact that it's a depiction of the jaws, I might be convinced (the image namespace caption also unfortunately has it as "head detail"). Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how your glue method works - what is the substrate? Putting them to sleep using CO2 will have the same result as the freezer - they'd simply curl up into an unphotographical ball. Ditto the alcohol treatment.
 * No, the antennae are roughly perpendicular to the head, and hence the fall within the same vertical plane as the head. But the antennae are just another part of the ant - like the jaws - so the head is the eyes and skull etc and the antennae are as seperate as the legs or thorax IMO. --Fir0002 06:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Where's the caption? What article does this appear in?  --Sean 01:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The caption is there, and perfectly sufficient in detail. Refer to this page: FPC captions to find out more. Opposing on the fact I didn't include the article it appears in is equally invalid - you can see that on the image's description page. I've added them for your reference anyway. FPC shouldn't be the place for bureaucratic nitpicking --Fir0002 05:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original Great detail shot; clear depictation of the head and jaws which would complement a full-body shot perfectly. Highlights are a bit harsh (need to practice with that new flash a bit more ;o)) but not distractingly so. I don't have any problem with the antennae and the caption is just fine. Nor, I have to say, do I see the point of the alt – the jaw is partially obscured and I'm left looking for the rest of the body. Just weakens your nomination, IMO. --mikaultalk 11:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Great shot, perfect focus (how DID you do it?) and a pretty good angle. And Mick, I don't think he had his fancy flash when this one was taken. Could be wrong though. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your intuition has not lead you astray Diliff - the was taken with a 580EX flash. It was manually focussed - it was fairly low light/shady area and the autofocus on macro's isn't that great... --Fir0002 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it then :o) --mikaultalk 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support You've recently added quite a few nice shots of this ant or its compatriots. While I like the full ant shot better for impact, it doesn't have the depth of field to make it here, and it is nice to have a featured image of scary insect threatening the camera, so I support the original image, despite the blown highlight on one tooth-thing.  Enuja  (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Original Looks good to me. -- Shark face  217  05:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support It's a wonderful photo, encyclopedic, exceptionally clear, gives excellent visual information about the size and structure of a living ant in its natural habitat. I think what some opposing people desire is a Platonic Ideal when all we have to work with is Material Reality. Also, freezers and glue? Taxidermy is like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of nature photography!  S a u d a d e 7  11:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)