Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wasp August 2007-12.jpg

Image:Wasp August 2007-12.jpg, featured

•  Info European beewolf (Philanthus triangulum), a solitary wasp. Though the adults of the species are herbivores, the name comes from the fact that the inseminated females hunt Western honey bees, paralyze them, placing several in a small underground chamber and laying an egg in the chamber with them, where they then serve as food for the wasp larvae (text taken from article here.I raised my own bar, was it enough? Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar
•  Support --Alvesgaspar 12:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Luc Viatour 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Yes. --MichaelMaggs 12:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support yesss. ^{__ ABF __ ▼☺☻▲} 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent, too bad you could not do a greater DOF, though. Freedom to share 16:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional  Support Very nice, but it is a Philanthus triangulum, or the European beewolf. Great find, great picture. Lycaon 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Wow ! But little (motion ? shake ?) blur and I'm sure u can do even better (Sorry but this is because I'm used to see Richard Bartz and Fir0002 pics) -- Benh 20:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is not fair to compare the resolution of Alvesgaspar's or Richard Bartz' pictures with the reduced res ones of Fir0002 (although for their size they are often top quality). Reduced to the minimal allowed limits, many of us would rival Fir0002 any time!!! Lycaon 20:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • •  Comment True my downsized images get improved sharpness etc, but they are good at full res too, and such quality can be expected and demanded from pix at this size. For an example take a look at this - Image:Large brown mantid07 edit crop.jpg which shows the quality of the image at 100%. Obviously not as high sharpness/quality as the down sampled image, but still quite acceptable. --Fir0002 www 09:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • To see by myself I reduced the size of this picture so it fits in a 1600x1600 square. It doesn't look as nice as Fir0002's pic IMO. You can do the same at home if you have some spare time too :) -- Benh 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I just tried, you're right it doesn't look as nice, but to me it looks nicer (no offence to Fir0002) as it is real life and not a studio photo. I do have a little experience too in studio pics, as well as in real life images... Still, I do respect your opinion. -- Lycaon 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Now its Alvesgaspar time, be prepared for a hot winter ! The blurry yellow buds in the background looks like a yellow cloud fresh outa the sweet exhaust :-) --Richard Bartz 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Yep --Simonizer 07:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Significant motion blur --Fir0002 www 09:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - The 1600px version was added at right (not a nomination). A lot better, isn't it? I've just come from WP:FPC slightly irritated with the "significant motion blur" pedantic chorus. Of course there is some motion blur and the DOF is not the ideal (3,5 mm in the present case), this was taken outside with sunlight, some wind and no tripode - which is useless with a 100 mm macro lens and quick moving creatures. Sometimes, we have the luck to meet friendly and cooperative models, like in this case, but that is uncommon. - Alvesgaspar 10:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm now starting macrophotography too. I have similar problems as yours (and this is a reason why I haven't uploaded any of my pics yet, they won't meet expectations here). I've found out however that increasing ISO to 400 (and even 800) is a good compromise. It allows you to use smaller apertures and get a shallower DOF, or to use shorter time exposure. What you lose in noise is fairly compensated by the increase of sharpness and DOF. Wonder if other more experienced macro shooter agree. Benh 11:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    •  Comment One thing I might add to this comment is that Commons needs al kind of pictures of organisms and not only those that fulfil FP or QI requirements. So please upload. From the 401 pictures I've uploaded so far, only 61 (15%) made it to QI and 13 (3%) to FP. E.g. the photomicrographs of user:Fabelfroh are very useful, though too small to be featured on these pages.Lycaon 12:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Seeder 20:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I can't imagine what 'significance' the motion blur on one stamen is, if there is blur elsewhere I can't see it. Clearly worthy of FP! --Tony Wills 08:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer 20:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--João Carvalho 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)