Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Wandering Glider Pantala flavescens.jpg

Wandering Glider[edit]

Reason: Good quality, Ev and aesthetics
Articles this image appears in: Libellulidae, Pantala flavescens
Creator: Muhammad

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice work. — Jake Wartenberg 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not the best position of the critter and quality is not good enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lighting is good and this is one of the sharpest dragonfly images on wikipedia. I am not sure I follow regarding the "not good quality". Re the position, the dragonfly was in this position. Can you explain?--Muhammad(talk) 13:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For this small size it ought to be pin sharp, which it isn't, especially the head. The position is poor because the wings are really not shown and spoil the composition. The point is the insect bar is quite high. Though I do not expect every bug FP to reach Richard Bartz's level, they should at least be technically excellent: well lit, detailed, sharp and with a good composition. Every FP's is supposed to be part of la crème de la crème (the cream of the cream), not just another nice picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its 2mp, much larger than the required 1000px on largest side. Compared to this dragonfly FP of yours, the sharpness on mine is a lot greater and apart from the wings the rest of the body is in perfect focus. This dragonfly perches in such a position, that when I had a rotated version shown to an expert, he was doubtful of the position right away. There was only one other alternative for the composition, to take from opp the wings. That version was less dynamic and eye catching. We can't apply the same rule of composition for all dragonflies. Oh, the head in this is also much sharper than in your darter. Sorry, if I have pinpointed to your example but I feel you have personally made the macro criteria very high recently --Muhammad(talk) 16:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem pointing to my darter except that the picture was taken almost two years ago ... and was donwsampled by Fir. (anyway, I beileve it has a great composition) Yes, my macro criteria have raised because the overall quality of the nominations raised too! That is a good thing IMO though I'm also affected by it! Notice that I almost stopped nominating insect pictures. In your case, my opinion is that you can easily reach the present bar (you already did, with some picturs) if you pay more attention to composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had to take a leap of faith with this one, because the wings are almost completely blurred out, and somewhat obstructing. However, in every other respect, it's an outstanding picture, and it would be unrealistic to expect such brilliant color and sharpness on a retake. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several spaces are really blurry, like the white spot at the top, the top of the branch, and the wings. (GeForce3 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- User has only 2 edits at FPC and a total of 70 edits --Muhammad(talk) 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- White spot at the top is the sky. You can't seriously expect that to be sharp in a macro shot! In macro pictures the DOF is very shallow and I request you to familiarize yourself with some macro pictures before opposing. --Muhammad(talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per PLW. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Quality is very good - I have no complaints there, although I would agree with Alvesgaspar that the composition isn't ideal. I think if you took it so that one wing was clearly to the right of the body and one wing was clearly to the left, the wings (even if they were very blurry) would be more defined. In this image, the near wing is jumbled up along the body which confuses the viewer a little. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry that I have to oppose an image with a fairly good technical quality. Because of the missing of the clearly recognizable wings there is a lacking three-dimensionality here, which isn't unsustainable for an excellent encyclopedical picture. The in a 90 degree angle splayed out wings, which are very important for this order are peculatet through an awkward angle. Nearly lateral plan view which is the easiest strategy to get a fairly good DOF result doesn't work on every insect species. Insects whose wings are laid out backwards are fine for lateral plan view shots. Take a christian cross as example, do you think it's a good idea to make a excellent picture with a nearly lateral plan view ? ... an exeption - if someone would hanging on it ;-) . --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral:~~ (Supporting instead). Ok, it's hard to disagree with you guys who "know" what you're talking about, so even though I don't personally think the wing issue is that important, it's enough to stop me supporting. But Muhammad, that light! This creature has taken an ethereal, surreal quality; the colours are so smooth and creamy and the hairs on his thorax look like silk. And every square millimetre of his body looks in focus. I'm sorry if that was all a little too effusive, but I really really like it. Maedin\^talk 16:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, you should support and disregard the opinion of the wise guys... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I completely agree. Different people place different importance on different things, and your opinion is as valid as ours when it comes to things like this. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As Diliff, and I would like a support after all the wonderful praise :-) --Muhammad(talk) 11:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok then, I happily support. Thanks for the encouragement, ;-) Maedin\^talk 12:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The wings issue is my only complaint, but it's an interesting, useful and elegant shot.--ragesoss (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wings don't bother me too much, only really give a sense of movement. Looking at the eyes I'm guessing this was a combination of ambient and flash? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, fill flash used as well to get better contrast --Muhammad(talk) 11:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fill usually decreases contrast on the subject actually. You might be referring to the background though. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is either the wings or the body. As per Alvesgaspar, is he supposed to cut the wings off to fill in your needs? If you take the image looking up, the composition will bring down EV. If he takes the image looking down, the wings will come into focus rather than the body. Nothing is perfect, and I like the fact that this one has clear quality on the abdomen/head. If there was another chance of taking the image again exactly with the dragon at this position, how would you have taken it? Zoo Fari 22:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From what I've been told from entomologists regarding my own images, the wing structure is an important identifier so this loses out on EV. And you yourself have taken several dragonflies with better poses than this recently and it's not impossible. Just an unfortunate angle just IMO --Fir0002 14:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, wing structure is important but there are several keys for identification and wing structure is used for very specific identification, of species for instance. This dragonfly was identified due to its vibrant orange colors and the wing structure was not even required by the entomologist. How does it then lose out on EV? A different angle loses out on the body pattern and some of the fine details such as the hairs. FWIW, I have an alternative with the wings in focus but it is not as eye catching as this and has some other faults I previously mentioned. --Muhammad(talk) 16:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted No consensus. --wadester 16 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]