Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red Dragonlets (Erythrodiplax fusca) in Botanical Garden of São Paulo, Brazil.jpg

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

File:Red Dragonlets (Erythrodiplax fusca) in Botanical Garden of São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 22:32:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red Dragonlets (EErythrodiplax fusca) in Botanical Garden of São Paulo, Brazil
it was a union technique of join 25 images to remove the noise. IMHO I can't get more size and quality because lens. I don't know why ask for more size if the camera can't give more and the fp requeriment size is only 2 mp. I am in process to buy a D7200, however, I can't understand where we are going asking for more and more size and forcing to the photographer community to get a quality imposible without a last line dslr machine. Thanks for your commet, I am open too to receive some recommendations and not only criticism to improve my quality. --The Photographer 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I was harsh in my choice of words. There are quite a few 'how to' guides online for dragonflies, the most important of which is to know that they will return to the same perch so you can be ready with the right light, nice bokeh, appropriate camera settings and a good stance so you can use slowish shutter speed. I try to use a monopod, but tripod even better. Jee takes excellent images using flash, but I'm not keen. Charles (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need tell sorry, you are a especialized photographer in this area. My comment was more a general comment, also, It was a bit frustrating trying to get clear pictures yes, however it's not somethig personal with your comment. I respect your comment a lot, perhaps in the process of write my comment I did it wrong and look like a complaint comment, however, it is more a general size critique that many others have commented here, excessive fanaticism for super size images. --The Photographer 13:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Charles and his knowledge and experience in this kind of photography. Daniel Case (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would like to know what Jee thinks about the focus issue with the tail. I think the exact species is not identified on page so that may be an issue too wrt FP status. Compare File:Red faced dragonlet (Erythrodiplax fusca) male.JPG for similar species. The insect seems rather over-saturated red, though that might be the correct lighting, it might also be a sign the image has been overcooked for saturation. Wrt the size, I don't think Charles was suggesting that there is an issue with getting FP from your 12MP camera, just that cropping does rapidly reduce file size and so good technique is required to get close-up photos of insects. [You've been here long enough to know that 2MP is a minimum necessary but not sufficient requirement -- being above 2MP is no guarantee of acceptance and in fact I'd be interested if we have much recent promotions below 5MP] Anyway, I disagree the image needs cropped, and the lovely smooth background is a feature of the photo. Not all our insect photos need to be close crops, and I think sometimes we neglect to find beauty outside of the obvious subject. I would be interested to know more about the technique mentioned about 25 frames. Was this taken on a tripod? Surely the branch and insect were moving. So how can one align 25 frames in that circumstance? -- Colin (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discussion on identification
  • 1. We need to identify the species first. Posting at Dragonflies & Damselflies may helps. There are a lot of species in this genus. 2. It seems in backlit; thorax and tip of abdomen in shadows. 3. The red seems OK for me. 4. Both, tight framing and giving some room around the subject is the photographer's choice. This too works. Jee 11:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Colin and Jk, thanks for your review. The images was taken using tripod and I used your ISO removal technique joining each image in photoshop with 100/25 % of opacity for each layer. About the color I applied a bit color saturation and for your comment it was too strong. Finally, With respect to species identification, I did a personal investigation and it can be a Erythrodiplax fusca, however, I have not been able to contact an expert for this identification --The Photographer 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, likely a mature male E. fusca as you can see the remains of the blue pruinescence on the abdomen. I think your Photoshop technique (new to me!) is probably losing too much definition in the hairs Charles (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, the technique was talked about here (at least that's where it started) if you are interested. The loss of def on the hairs is probably more due to movement since the trick is used to reveal smaller objects. --cart-Talk 12:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This technique is the best noise reduction technique that I know, basically a miracle --The Photographer 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. I remember. My Canon 70D has a low light setting that does this in Camera, but I've never got it to work properly. I can't imagine many days in the field where you wouldn't get degradation of sharpness of odonata hairs. I'll nominate a traditional image for comparison. Charles (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Benoît Guillon confirmed that this is Erythrodiplax fusca. Jee 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: Thanks for help me in the identification procedure. BTW, @Colin: I rollbacked any vibrance/saturation to the original image (now it has the original colors without any change) and I added some sharpening in the abdomen @Charlesjsharp: . --The Photographer 13:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discussion on Lucas' support vote
Charles, good to know I surprised you. People do react very differently to images. I expressed my real feelings when viewing the image, and these might be inconsistent with my other votes. It's fine by me if the image does not get featured because of all the reasons in the lengthy discussion above, I don't want to downplay those at all, but I wanted to share my view that I just enjoy the image as it is. – LucasT 13:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But we should be wary of a quirky support vote that might be seen as undermining the FP process. Naturally you can enjoy the image. Charles (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, in what way do you think my vote would undermine the FP process? I'm genuinely curious, I strive to be a better voter. I stated my reasons as well as you stated yours to oppose—in fact a support vote doesn't even require any comment to begin with. FP is about great images people enjoy looking at, and while your criticism is valid, I strongly feel that my support is as valid and far from undermining anything. – LucasT 13:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to explain was that for certain types of image - panoramas is another good example - there are many FPCs and standards are established and people vote accordingly. The same applies with wildlife. While a newcomer to FPC might vote on instinct, I think the FPC process relies on a regular voter respecting established FPC standards. For insect images like this it saves a lot of time if images are submitted to QI first. Charles (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Lucas. F*ck established standards and hooray for images that deliver emotion. FPC is about great images, not great pixels. Unlike QI, at FP we try to balance technical merit with artistic merit. Yes a boring insect photo would demand head-to-tail sharpness. This isn't a boring insect photo. -- Colin (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discussion on Colin's support vote
  • I don't get bored by insect photos nor by boring photos; I'm capable of appreciating their other merits and supporting them. There is a place on Commons for unexciting photos that are of such high technical excellence that they are "among our finest". Not every photo has to be artistically outstanding, beautiful, or the subject emotionally moving. A key difference between QI and FP is that technical merit is not the only factor. For example, my own File:Elizabeth Tower 2014-09-21 205MP.jpg and File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg are artistically boring photos. Their unique high viewpoints combined with sharp detail in very high resolution makes them educationally highly valuable photos of two of the more important towers in London, and their technical standard lifts them to be among our finest. There is a role for "established standards" and "expert opinion" wrt the technical standards and aspects of our images. People familiar with genres of photography can highlight what is important and not important to get right technically. But anyone can have an opinion on whether an image is a great image. Please don't dismiss that as "newcomer's instinct". -- Colin (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - Charles, don't you think we should make FPC hospitable to newcomers? Each person has only one vote. If a new participant votes differently from a bunch of regulars, their opinion won't carry the day, but it might be interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Absolutely. When I said "a newcomer to FPC might vote on instinct", I didn't imply that was wrong, but if he/she then found out that their vote was, say, the only one in favour, then the comments of others should inform subsequent votes. We all freely vote on images where we don't understand the technical challenges or quality benchmarks - a 360 deg panorama is one example. I loved one of a church interior some days ago, but had there been negative comments from people who do understand, I would have looked more closely next time. Charles (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin is out of order as he was in writing "F*ck established standards". I posted that "we should be wary of a quirky support vote that might be seen as undermining the FP process." That referred to Lucas' vote and is neither patronising nor offensive. Charles (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lucas asked you why you felt his quirky vote was undermining the FP process. And you replied he was a beginner voting on instinct, ignorant of the established standards that he should learn to respect. That's patronising and offensive. And note that QI is not a training ground for FP and nor does The Photographer need lessons from you on what is appropriate to nominate at FP: he was nominating images at FP while you were still in short trousers. -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your gratuitous rudeness is depressing. Your ability to read, however, may be excusable. I said "While a newcomer to FPC might vote on instinct, I think the FPC process relies on a regular voter respecting established FPC standards". Lucas is a regular voter. And, by the way, I'm rather concerned that you know when I stopped wearing short trousers. Charles (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, repeating your patronising remarks doesn't make them less so. For the benefit of non-English speakers, unfamiliar with the phrase, the "while you were still in short trousers" is a British idiom that refers to someone still being in infant school, with the implication that the other person has vastly greater experience. Charles started nominating at FP in 2014 whereas The Photographer began in 2007. So Charles' advice on using QI first is just more patronising, and depresses me that anyone would think the pixel peeping QI is a fundamental for FP. It is precisely that this is not QI that enables us to enjoy and celebrate an image -- QI is full of dull an unexciting photos. You are clearly beeing snooty towards both Lucas and The Photographer. Aparently us non-experts can "enjoy" a photo but are not allowed to support it lest our quirky opinions undermine the process. What rot. -- Colin (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 18:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Red_Dragonlets_(Erythrodiplax_fusca)_in_Botanical_Garden_of_São_Paulo,_Brazil.jpg&oldid=236501326"