Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Musca domestica on black eyed susan.jpg

Musca Domestica
High quality image of a small housefly, Musca domestica, on the leaf of a Black Eyed Susan.

Appears in House Fly


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Both, Prefers Alternative. Tomer T 12:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either pref to original. Great shots. before seeing your Sigma tag i thought you had gotten some bellows or something. -Fcb981 15:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either, prefer original as it gives a more detailed look at the fly. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 18:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either Prefer original, as it has a better view of the diagnostic criteria for the species - the vein pattern on the wings, mouthparts, etc. Adam Cuerden talk 22:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either per above. --Mad Max 08:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either. With respect to the second image, may I suggest a 90o rotation so that the insect is portrayed in a more human-intuitive, horizontal fashion? Spikebrennan 14:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support First I think the detail on it is better than the second, although they are both excellent.  In the first image you can even see the individual parts of the compound eye - impressive work.  I really agree with Spikebrennan - I would prefer the composition of the second one rotated. Zakolantern 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I could rotate, but it'd look a little odd because the fly is gripping the leaf to remain upright (this was the original orientation of the pic) --Fir0002 08:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose both Neither shot shows the insect completely in focus. As nice as the shots are, it's not like there will be a shortage of opportunities to get a completely clear shot. Matt Deres 00:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remember that this is an exceptionally small insect (10mm), and the photo was taken at f/13 to maximise DOF w/o losing sharpness. A fully in focus image would be nigh impossible - focus stacking is probably the only way and is utterly impractical "in the wild" where you have to contend with wind and the movement of the insect itself. --Fir0002 07:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 10mm is actually pretty large for insects. I'd bet its in the 70th percentile on a species by species basis. Debivort 16:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm in no position to give you advice on photography, but the pictures I saw through Google image searches, while not having nearly the quality yours does, tended to have a more even quality if it was a top-down shot. No surprise there since there's less depth to cover. As for "in the wild", hey, it's a house fly, right? ;-) My oppose vote simply comes down to this: there are zillions of these bugs and the same guy with the same camera and a slightly different angle or chance of light could take a (IMHO) significantly better shot, even taking into consideration that these ones are head and shoulders above most of the other fly photos out there. Matt Deres 02:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose both User:Fir0002 and friends have set the bar *very* high for insect shots, so a common bug like this needs to have a more or less perfect shot. --TotoBaggins 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, I didn't realize until I posted that Fir had taken this shot. :D At least I can't be accused of the any of the pro- or anti-Fir bias that sometimes afflicts this page. :)   --TotoBaggins 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, indeed you couldn't! But just so I know and can improve etc, what makes this photo "imperfect"? Thanks, --Fir0002 07:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support alternative - I was objecting to the poor DOF, but having looked at other fly pics on the web, and reading your comments, I have changed my mind on the vertical shot. --TotoBaggins 16:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose both, Per above. 8thstar 04:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support alt the background on the first is rather unappealing. The second has nice bokeh. Debivort 16:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support alt, without rotation. The blurred background isn't an issue any more than it was here; it draws your eye to what you should be looking at ... the fly in all its detail. Daniel Case 06:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support both - preference is to the original because of preferred image composition and color contrast. --Midnightdreary 18:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 02:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)