Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ichneumonidae mating.jpg

File:Ichneumonidae mating.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2009 at 12:43:36

•  Info Two Ichneumonidae flies mating. The flies are very small and maintaining a good DOF at this high level of maginification is very difficult. Good quality and lighting of a very rarely seen and photographed incident (according to the one who helped identify the subject). Created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 12:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad 12:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very interesting shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oh, dear! Flashing like hell :-)) There is 2 much overexposure (wings, thorax, abdomen) . Otherwise nice. --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This picture would not have been possible without flash as a fast shutter speed was required since the mating wasps were not immobile --Muhammad 18:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree - maybe not possible for you :-)) 1/250 with flashlight Macro isn't that difficult nor magic and a photographer has to abide by the rules as in every genre. I have nothing against flashlight in general but an overexposure with many areas of total white (255,255,255) isn't acceptable and doesn't knock me off my socks, nowadays . Friendly advice: Raise the distance (more DOF) and use a wider aperture to gain a faster shutter speed and crop -or- use softer flashlight techniques -or- retouche your pictures before nominating. --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
      • By raising the distance do you mean move back from the subject and not shoot at 1:1? By re-touching, would I be able to solve the overexposure on the wings? (BTW, friendly advice much appreciated :-)) --Muhammad 20:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
        • You should try this :-)) Take a ruler and place it in a 45 degree position, focus a number (the number should be rotated 90 degrees clockwise when setting up corectly) and make some pictures while raising the distance, start with 1:1 and go up to 50cm. You will see that DOF will enlarge and with the ruler you can meassure that effect very exactly. This experiment in mind will help you in finding good strategies in the future. Regarding retouching - I'am shure that you can remove the selective overexposure with ease as the picture isn't overexposed at all. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks ;-) --Muhammad 18:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kjetil_r 19:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Claus (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Richard Bartz. —kallerna™ 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Avjoska (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I'm in doubt. On the one hand, Richard is right about the overexposed areas. On the other hand, it's an extraordinary picture with many qualities too. So, finally, I prefer to support... -- MJJR (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lycaon (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

 result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)