Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2014 at 11:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I am no butterfly expert, I just try to take good photos and I think this one is not that bad. Yes, this animal was also able to fly well and it took me multiple attempts to take such a photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, I should have read the description more carefully. Lazy of me. The fact that we rarely see butterflies in this poor state in the wild is a testament to evolution by natural selection ;-) I'm afraid I don't support zoo pictures, but if you get any good images of wild species I'd be very, very pleased to support. -- Des Callaghan (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look on this photo I took of a wild Papilio machaon. This was also injured thus photos in wild are no guarantee to find non-injured animals. I would not criticize photos of captive animals per se. For most of the wiki photographers expensive safari tours are not affordable so photos in zoos are a good alternative. If you look e.g. on this FP of mine of a tiger I cannot see any disadvantage of the photo compared to a photo in wild besides that you can't say: "Oh, I took this photo in wild on an exiting safari tour". Des Callaghan, I surely respect your denial of zoo photos but I think on Commons photographic aspects should be more important than political statements. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Des Callaghan, why not you expect butterflies in terrible conditions in wild? They should be, because they are the food for many hunting animals like birds, spiders, dragonflies, mantis, to name a few. They've great survival tactics like false eyes on the wings to fool their enemies. But I agree with you on the importance of specimens from wild. There is chances of cross-breeding in zoo; so we can't trust such specimens as a modal. Moreover, the actual location of their habitat is also an important data for studies. If I remember well, MPF also shared such concerns. Jee15:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso I think we differ on our ethical view of zoos. That’s OK. I’ve no big concern with the likes of butterflies, but certainly with the likes of large predators. For me, it is a great pity to see a tiger sat on a sawn log in a zoo. The context of the image is important to me. I also have great respect for photographers that take great images of wild organisms, simply because it is usually much harder than the captive alternative. -- Des Callaghan (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
J Yes, organisms in terrible condition occur in the wild, but they are rare because they are relatively easy to eat compared to the others. Survival of the fittest and all that. Perhaps we would expect individuals in terrible condition to occur more frequently in photographs because they will be relatively easy to approach? -- Des Callaghan (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: contra Tuxyso's comparison with File:Schwalbenschwanz Desenberg 2014.jpg, this specimen is not injured (there is nothing missing from the wings), but is disabled - some sort of developmental disorder which meant the wings have not grown to their natural shape, likely connected with the conditions in captivity under which it pupated and hatched out (maybe lack of water?). Just one more reason that captive specimens are not good choices for illustrating a species. Likewise, the cited tiger shows obvious signs of unnatural obesity (common in captive animals, extremely rare in the wild), so again - not the best image to illustrate a species. MPF (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I am not interested anymore to get into a disussion where I have to justify myself why I take photos of captive animals (as a lot of other excellent Commons photographers do). If you think photos of captive animals are photos non grata on Commons make an RFC but do not fire against my photo(s). I think it is more than eligable to take photos of captive animals, nominate them here and use them for documentary purposes - we are speaking about an amateur encyclopedia not about an awarded National Geographic documentation. If you have the time (and sureley the money) go into the jungle, spend a few month there and upload your photos to Commons. And again: I am not interested to get involved into an ethical discussion about zoos and captive animals (I agree that there are serious deficits) - this discussion is important but here is definitely the wrong platform to do that. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those problems of the butterfly can have EV if it's explained in the file description; it would be a good photograph of an ill animal. --Kadellar (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Problems of malformation of lepidopteras wings, are not uncommon. I as curious, I've seen some samples in both urban and wild environments, especially moth. This photo is a good sample of this occurrence, as curiosity: rate changes in malformations can be used as indicators of environmental change. As an example: [Fukushima Radiation Gives Rise to Mutant Butterflies?] despite the wrong title. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Christian. I am not sure if I really understood your argument. Could you mark the area on the photo and describe what's the problem with it and what I can do better in future? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the darkest parts of the both wings are just over the dark area of the background (half top of the image), and that don't help for to highlight the butterfly, that's even increase the contrast between the half bottom and the half top, it's the first thing I think when I look at the image : dark half top + clear half bottom = a bit unbalenced (IMO). In macro the backgrounds are very important for compositions, and it's very hard but necessary to think at what will be the background in the final result. This image is nice and well done IMO, but here we agree that we speak about outstanding images. I hope to have been a little more precise. :)-- Christian FerrerTalk / Images14:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have also another photo of this butterfly (File:Anartia amathea 02 2014.jpg). But I think from compositional aspects the nominated one is better. 
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
_butterfly.jpg){kind=link}
Oppose a good photograph of a captive individual in poor condition (worn wings and missing parts of its wings) -- Des Callaghan (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment Those problems of the butterfly can have EV if it's explained in the file description; it would be a good photograph of an ill animal. --Kadellar (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
