Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Escarabajo errante (Ocypus olens), Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-28, DD 440-475 FS.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Escarabajo errante (Ocypus olens), Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-28, DD 440-475 FS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2020 at 16:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Devil's Coach-horse
  • I think the answer to the question 'why not photograph live ones' is probably practicality. It must be difficult to get a living bug to stay still for long enough to produce a photo stack. Of course some photographers sometimes do manage it - Ermell especially - but if the only opportunity Poco had to get the image was a specimen, the end product is still FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is challenging to focus-stack bugs, but using dead ones is not the answer. Some people put them in the fridge to slow down their metabolism. Better to keep trying to get it right. Museum specimen photos are of course very valuable. My two current focus-stacked damselflies are both hand-held shots outdoors and focus-stacked using Helicon Focus software. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead, here you can apply the strong light or flash that a lupe lens for 1-5x magnification requires and you can get as close as 5 cm with both the lens and the lighting. That's just impossible with a living animal as I needed in this case 36 frames for the focus stacking, that takes time (20 min approx.). Which animal wouldn't move 20 min long with a flash or strong light and a lens pointing at it 5 cm away? If you have no clue what I talk about have a look here how a US institute with lots of ressources does it or here how other people with more limited ressources do it.
  • Alive, forget using a lupe lens like MP-E and forget this level of detail. With a bit of luck and lots of attempts you could get detail but only for one frame, and at this level of detail DoF is ridiculous. Even with a good lens like the 100mm f/2.8 and a device like the helicon tube that allows you to shot very quickly a bunch of images to generate later on a FS image you have to be at a certain distance, again, forget this level of detail, that's a different kind of photography.
Please, don't complain about the fact that the animal is dead, you will never get this detail and DoF from a living animal. Poco a poco (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree Poco a poco. Don't you like the detail on my damselflies? I agree you have no hope with living animals with your technique. You need a different technique. Some cameras like the new Canon EOS 90D have built in focus-stacking, but only from live view. I use the Helicon Tube between my camea body and 100mm macro lens. I use burst mode and shoot 7 frames/second with the focus point moving further away every shot by 2mm. I don't use RAW as the camera writes too slowly. The Helicon software compenstaes for my sideways movements.T here can then be a lot of editing to erase multiple moving antennae. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, how can you affirm that the detail of this image of yours can be compared to the detail of this beetle? The beetle is 2,5 cm long and your damselfly 3,5 cm long. The beetle is 7,500 pixels long and parallel to the plane of the camera, your damselfly about 3,800 pixel long but not parallel to the plane of the camera, therefore approx. 2,800 pixel of detail. So, the detail of your image considering the resolution you offer (x axle) and the size of the subject is 3,75 lower. We are talking here about 2 different areas of photography, don't mix them up. I also have the 100 m f/2.8 and know what I talk about. Regarding using JPG instead of RAW for that burst needed there, double check whether the solution is not rather a faster memory card. Poco a poco (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. When I compare the two images, I come to a different conclusion. Many pixels does not result in higher quality. I use Sandisk Extreme 90 MB/s memory card, which writes less than 3 RAW+JPG images/sec. I do not want to shot just RAW, though that would only reach 3 images/sec. Not fast enough for a second burst of a live animal. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with you that many pixels don't necessarily result in higher quality, in fact, the more magnification, the trickier it is to get that quality because the lighting gets more difficult and you need to get very close to the object, so halos and those kind of things are more noticeable. The buffer size of your camera can store 27 RAW files, so I'm not sure what the problem could be. The 90 MB/s is the read speed, not the write speed, which will be lower, if you get a V90 card (e.g. Sony SF-G Tough Series UHS-II) you can write at a speed of up to 300 MB/s with a guaranteed minimum write speed of 90 MB/s. Poco a poco (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it has 40 MB/s write speed, which makes using RAW even less possible. While it is buffering, I cannot take another shot. That is the problem with live animals. 90 MB/s would still be too slow. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Escarabajo_errante_(Ocypus_olens),_Hartelholz,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2020-06-28,_DD_440-475_FS.jpg&oldid=444116629"