Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hummingbird Hawk-moth2

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hummingbird Hawk-moth2[edit]

OK, another picture [1] of this amazing buzzing creature was recently awarded feature status, but here's one that addresses one of the concerns voiced by some; the wings are sharp here, frozen by flash. The size of this image is smallish (reason: cropping and some downsampling), but it still fulfills the requirement. Note that I don't propose "replacing" the previous FP, I just wish to present this for your consideration. Appears in Hummingbird Hawk-moth and electronic flash.

Self-nom. --Janke | Talk 21:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Looks like the EXIF data is gone. What was the exposure length? Was this during the day or at night? Not that it will effect my vote, I am just interested. -Ravedave ^{help name my baby} 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF disappeared during cropping & downsampling. Late daytime, but flash overpowers daylight (of course - otherwise you'd have blurry wings). Flash duration is probably in the 1/5000 to 1/10000 range, due to the short distance. I do have another shot with "fill-flash", not "full-flash", the wings are transparent in that one!! --Janke | Talk 22:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support A great addition to the article, it's good to have one picture showing the motion blur and another (this one) freezing the motion to show the wing and body colouration and patternation clearly. I have identified the flower (Perennial Phlox) on the image description page.--Melburnian 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are some parts of the flower that i don't find particularly appealing (i don't know the exact botanical term, if you will). I also don't like the dark background.--Vircabutar 05:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I cannot support due to dark blackground and small size. I cannot oppose because it is such a good picture. HighInBC 13:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It does a good job of showing the moth and its "frozen" wings, but there are too other many things I don't like. The background is dark, the flash creates harsh shadows, and it's a little grainy (especially in the dark areas) (now if the flash shadow is supposed to be there, I'll change my vote to a Weak support). Despite the informative caption, it's not clear by just looking at the picture that the wings were moving very fast. I think the other two water pictures on the Electronic flash article display the subjects in a more obvious freeze-frame. In all, I just don't think this is FP material. --Tewy 01:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dislike the harsh flash light. Congrats on freezing the wings, but it hasn't really produced that amazing a photo - existing one is much better. Also this image seems to suffer from noise and lack of clarity. --Fir0002 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 01:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]