Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Naupactus

Naupactus

 * Reason:Focus stacked (by hand) from 3 images. Everything is in focus except for the ends of the antennae. High res, high EV, good lighting, background, and composition.
 * Articles this image appears in:Naupactus (genus), Entiminae
 * Creator:Kaldari


 * Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Did you sharpen this?  ceran  thor 00:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did some sharpening, but I'm pretty conservative about it. Kaldari (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this, but I can't help but think you can get sharper results than this. Did you perform any noise reduction (that could be to blame)? How far was the ambient light below the flash? Which focus stack algorithm did you use? Noodle snacks (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The noise reduction was on the background only. The focus stacking was hand-masked in Photoshop. I don't remember what the ambient light level was (I think it was pretty low though). Is it better to have brighter or dimmer ambient light? Is it possible I'm still having strong diffraction effects at f/11 due to the magnification level? Kaldari (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that it's not a matter of brightness or dimness, but amount of light. (NS, correct me if wrong.)  ceran  thor 10:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Short shutter speed will reduce any ambient instilled motion. So with ambient only short shutter speeds are good (lots of light). With an ambient/flash mix, exposing the ambient lower will reduce any ambient induced motion blur. Agree that manual stacking with a few frames is best for hand-held stacks. Is this a substantial crop from the full frame (dimensions suggest its possible)? If so then diffraction is probably the strongest candidate. I'd expect the XSi/450D to be a little more sensitive to it than my camera, but it wouldn't show up if this was a down sample. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The photo was originally a 1:1 macro at 4272x2848. It was cropped down to 2342x1756 and then down-sampled slightly to 2000x1500. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly diffraction related then. Couldn't you get closer? Was it smaller than 1:1? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the 4th weevil species I've photographed and the first one that wasn't continuously running away. He was quite shy, however, and would scoot to the far side of the twig whenever he thought I was getting too close. The fact that I managed to get 3 clean shots as close as I did was lucky I think. The only other weevil photo I'm happy with is this one, which was also tricky as it was hand-held while the weevil was moving, but I was close enough to get a sharp picture and the focusing was pure luck. What's your opinion of that one? Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll let you know on a decent monitor when I get home. It looks pretty good to me, I'd nominate it seperately since this nomination is getting a bit old. I'm not so sure of the climate in Nashville. Photographing them in colder temperatures (early and late in the day, cold days) will make life easier. If you can find them feeding then that will also probably occupy them a bit. Try not to block the ambient light with your shadow if possible. Move slowly, and keep low (many of my insects are taken from a prone position). Noodle snacks (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd give the alt a go, though it is still a little borderline I think I'd probably support. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support great photo but see above. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some additional work on the focus-stack masking to reduce haloing on the outer hairs and to fix a few soft spots. It's still about the same sharpness-wise, but considering the image is 3 megapixel, I think it should be given a little leeway. It could obviously be down-sampled substantially and still meet the requirements. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No quorum, try again with new version later? --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)