Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Schnepfenfliege Rhagio scolopaceus2.jpg

Snipefly

 * Reason:A very detailed and aesthetic image of a snipefly
 * Articles this image appears in:Rhagionidae
 * Creator:Richard Bartz aka Makro Freak


 * Support as nominator --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support as of great quality -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support great focus, and... the eyes... are amazing. Spencer  T♦C 02:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Large DOF makes this a very good macro. Surprising sharpness at 1/4s. Well done. victorrocha (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Great sharpness, DOF is controlled well, wonderfully diffused background, rich colour, just a really great shot both artistically and technically! Capital photographer (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Stunning. Laitche (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - A professional shot. I whish it could be done without focus bracketing and special lighting... Why this tight crop above the critter?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look where the foot goes down to below the leaf, the image seems well balanced to me and very focused. Capital photographer (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not so much the lack of head room as the cutting off of the leaf tip which is wrong with the composition in this photo IMO --Fir0002 12:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The tip was far away, it's a twist --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're a professional, you may be able to make such a matter of fact statement. Capital photographer (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a professional but I do at least have some credentials and as a pretty experienced amateur, particularly in macro, I feel perfectly qualified to offer that opinion. --Fir0002 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we're all here to offer an opinion. Which is why when I make judgements about composition, lighting or processing, I try to make it clear that it is just my opinion. I don't believe it's okay to just bluntly say that something is wrong. You could have said that you "don't feel the composition is the best for that subject". Capital photographer (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well call me naive, but I would have thought Fir's use of IMO in his ORIGINAL comment made it pretty darn clear that he was just offering his opinion. --jjron (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Nice macro shot. However as much as I like the soft lighting it seems that the sharpness of the body has really suffered due to the extended exposure time (the eyes excepted - they are uncharacteristically sharp). Maybe next time try use ~1/60s with some fill flash that way you'll get much better sharpness and still have nice lighting. Oh and I think the WB could do with some tweaking - too much in the greens (check out the eyes) but I'll let you decide. --Fir0002 12:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sharpness has suffered? I'm looking at it at 100% on a 30" Apple Cinema HD Display. Looks pretty sharp to me. WB also looks fine. And I would definitely not advise using fill flash unless absolutely necessary. One of your own images exemplifies how the use of flash can advserley affect image quality by creating a synthetic look (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hoverfly_perched_on_grass.jpg). The lighting in this image is ideal, neutral and even, perfect for an accurate, pure and natural capture. The photographer used a Canon 40D so I would have bumped it up to ISO400 to get a better shutter speed, which is easily achievable without detriment on the 40D. And (if not used) use a tripod. What display are you looking at this on? And is it colour calibrated? Capital photographer (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes sharpness has definitely suffered - check out the body hairs etc, they have no definition. If you honestly can't see it open it up at full res in one tab and something like this in another and flick between the two and it will become pretty obvious. A 40D with that lens is capable of producing much better results. I first looked at it at home on a $300 Polyview 17" (an everyday user LCD) and am now looking at it on a 20" SyncMaster at uni and am seeing no difference. WB is not drastically off but could do with improvement (open it in Photoshop and adjust the shadows in colour balance to about 6 bias to the magenta/cyan IMO). I maybe be wrong here but I don't think you're in a good position to lecture on WB or colour calibration on screens given your recent Toyota Aurion nom with burnt red wheels (despite having a Mk III!!). Yes definitely ISO400 would have been a good way to increase shutter speed (I automatically assumed he was using that as 90% I use ISO400). 1/4s, macro photography with a 180mm lens? Obviously he had a tripod! But 1/4s is almost never feasible in outdoor photography (even with a tripod, cable release and MLU) because tiny movements (due to wind etc) become very apparent at the magnifications you're working at. Anyway just FYI I'm unlikely to post any further responses on this topic due to time pressures in real life. --Fir0002 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Burnt red wheels? Seriously, get a decent display and calibrate it. Capital photographer (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Seriously open up in PS and hit ctrl+shift+b --Fir0002 05:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, so you found time to reply. Well, for starters, the wheel is the big silvery thing in the middle. They're 16" alloys. The part you are reffering to is called the tyre. Dunlop sports, and they go around the wheel. And yes, there is some red colouring on the tyre, you know why... it's the dirt I was driving on that stuck to the tyre because of recent rain. The saturation was bumped up a bit making it more obvious but rest assured, any orange-red coloring on the tyres is dirt and was in the original scene. And going back to your own image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hoverfly_perched_on_grass.jpg), with over sharpening and synthetic lighting, not to mention most of it's body is out of focus.Capital photographer (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No ,the big silvery thing is the hubcap. You can't see the wheel. :P Anyway, the sharpness has suffered, I can vouch for that. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They're alloy wheels, alloys don't have hubcaps. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubcaps, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alloy_wheel_of_a_2007_Subaru_Liberty_3.0R_Spec_B.jpg and http://www.jaxquickfit.com.au/Wheels/breyton.html . Some have small centre caps. And even if there is a hubcap on a steel wheel, you can still see the wheel behind it. In any case, Fir doesn't know the various parts of a car and was referring to the wrong part. Capital photographer (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what this has still 2 do with the snipefly ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support excellent detail &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-05-29 13:12Z
 * Support image, oppose pissing contest.--ragesoss (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support the image. We can do away with irrelevant details about photography which doesn't add value to the current topic.Avik pram (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Simply an incredible image. Nautica Shad es  19:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)