Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Convolvulus hawk-moth (Agrius convolvuli) 2.jpg

File:Convolvulus hawk-moth (Agrius convolvuli) 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 09:19:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Convolvulus hawk-moth (Agrius convolvuli) 2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Convolvulus hawk-moth (Agrius convolvuli) 2.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info This type of Sphingidae (about 45mm long) has a huge proboscis. The wings beat at around 45 beats/second, so it is not possible to freeze wing motion in the wild. From Bulgaria. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support considering that this was captured in flight: wow! --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - I already liked the photo and considered the motion blur appropriate, but I'm more impressed, considering that it beats its wings 45x a second. Technical question, though: Why wouldn't you use a shorter exposure than 1/1,600 of a second? Granted that I was only using an Android and mostly photographing butterflies that had alighted for a fraction of a second or more, but I was having much better luck last summer in getting sharp pictures of butterflies with rapidly beating wings when I shortened my exposure to 1/4,090 of a second. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm already at maximum aperture (F5.6) and would have gone to 1/2000 and ISO 800 if I had time. I find that although sharpness would be better at 1/4000, overall quality (for print or FP pixel-peeping) really deteriorates above ISO 800. With this sort of photography I use a preset of 1/1600 or 1/2000 sec. If I leave it up to the camera's brain (SCN Sports), it can get confused: if it sees the insect's body as pretty still it reduces shutter speed. If it sees the wings it might select 1/8000 and a very high ISO. On my Canon 80D I have two presets (C1 and C2). I program one at 1/1600 (TV = shutter priority: S on Nikon I think) and one at 1/2000. I then get better depth of field if the light happens to be really good. Not this time. Charles (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Support IMHO there's no discussion necessary ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Strong support I thought it was a twig, but no, it really is the trunk ! Impressive -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 10:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 20:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Wow great shot! --Podzemnik (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 13:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support good --67.68.177.192 23:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera