Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hesperia comma, Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-28, DD 113-140 FS.jpg

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

File:Hesperia comma, Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-28, DD 113-140 FS.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2020 at 09:02:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Detail of a Silver-spotted skipper (Hesperia comma), Hartelholz, Munich, Germany
  • Understood, but I think that argument deserved to be slammed. It might be different if Ivar were a new user who thought perfect sharpness at full size was a requirement for FP, but he isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I support Ikan's right to complain about a review on the grounds that it might "punish" anyone for uploading "a full-size photo", can we please avoid making personal attacks, Poco. And, "Make it better" is never ever an acceptable remark to make, because reviewers are not required to even be photographers, never mind expert macro photographers. Further, asking that comparable FPs be "preferentially from a Commoner" is also unacceptable. Commons FP is to review our finest images, no matter what their origin. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reviewer who knows, or better, has experience about a topic will always be able to make a more solid review. I don't review restorations because I didn't ever make one and so far I didn't review underwater photography because I had until last year no experience. I could review those images but then I only review the result without knowing the process to get there and how tricky or not it could have been for the restorator. I do indeed also review the difficulty to take a shot, but I'm fine if others just judge the result.
  • FPs don't have to be the work of a Commoner, that's clear, but wouldn't it be meaningful to encourage this kind of photography in the project to get more valuable stuff instead of being so harsh with those who give their best here? You show up again and manage that I give up to work further on macro photography (or at least to upload anything out of that to Commons) Poco a poco (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slamming an argument and saying "Are you serious?" are not personal attacks where I come from, but apparently at least 1 person disagrees (not you). Your argument has a lot more substance behind it, though in comparing the compound eyes, I still disagree (for now) that this isn't one of the best. I went to your link, and I think it's clear that there aren't 4,495 similar, better photos there. Just look at the first page, and you can see that a lot of the photos there aren't closeups or aren't closeups showing the eyes. I opened one that is. Do you think that compound eye is superior to this one? There might be lots of similar photos in that category that are superior to this one; I grant you that. But we'd have to look through the category manually and find them - a worthy task, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan Kekek, just to be clear, my comment was indented to reply to Poco, and my remark about making a personal attack was directed at Poco, which I thought was clear with the "can we please avoid making personal attacks, Poco", but evidently not. Sorry that didn't come across. You commented on the vote, Poco commented on the voter, and my sentence was contrasting your approach (which I support) vs Poco's.
Wrt the set, there are an abundance of finer images, for example this scary green bee and plenty other bee-head close-ups. I reckon this entire tiny parasitic wasp is smaller than this butterfly's head, so it isn't really about whether we are comparing the compound eye of a bee or wasp with the compound eye of a butterfly, but that this is certainly includes photography on the same scale and subject matter. They even use the same lens, though they ignore the extender, which is fit only for a museum. It isn't surprising that the USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory are in a different class: their equipment may be no better, but they've taken thousands of these photos. -- Colin (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that bee photo is great! It was clear from a careful reading that your remark wasn't intended for me, and I guess my parenthetical "not you" wasn't clear enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Gnosis (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Wrt the "nothing is really sharp here" vote.... it is a totally accurate comment at 100% magnification. Whether that's a good reason to oppose is another matter (I don't think so). This already isn't a "full-size photo", which would be 50.6MP rather than 20MP -- this image is downsized about 60% already. If I look at a 2500px wide further downsized version (about 4.2MP) I'm not convinced this 20MP version has any extra detail, just noise. The camera sensor might be 50MP but the optics here are only rendering about 4MP of detail. Downsizing is harmful if there is actually a loss of information (real detail), which I don't really think is the case here.
So this "sharp 4MP image" might have been detailed enough to impress at FP 10 years ago, this is quite some way from being "among our finest" macro photos of insects in 2020. Obviously there's Ermell's excellent work recently. But for a closer comparison, see this POTY finalist from six years ago, for an example of a sharp 13MP compound-eye photograph, and there are 4,495 similar photos that pretty much all exceed this one in quality. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went through that category and see good stuff but most of them are smaller and/or oversharpened. I didn't know though that category yet and is great to have it because you'll see no further macro shots of myself on the project anymore.
And I find it disrespectful and unfair to compare the images of laboratories with expensive equipment (do you know what is the price of those stepper motors??), unlimited time, specimens, space and so on with the shots I can take in my apartment and on my own. So, enjoy thos USGS images. Poco a poco (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info on macro lens magnification terminology and technical issues

When focused at the closest distance the lens can focus, a 1:1 macro lens reproduces an image of the plane-of-focus at exactly life-size on the sensor of the camera (here 36×24 mm full frame). This isn't life-size on your computer screen, however, which is likely to be much larger than 36mm wide (!) and have a much lower resolution than 8688 × 5792. You might have a 6" mobile phone or a 32" desktop, and the pixel size of the screen will affect the size of the image at 100% view. The Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1–5x Macro lens used here is unusual in that the magnification factor can be altered from 1x to 5x. Increasing the magnification causes a proportional reduction in both the effective aperture size (darker) and depth of field (extremely narrow). At 5x it is (5+1=6) times smaller effective aperture (f/5 becomes f/30). Using a 2x extender for 10x makes those problems a whole lot worse (f/55). The low light then requires a higher ISO (1250) and the tiny aperture causes diffraction softening, both of which rob an image of pixel-level detail.

This is a lens from 1999, and while it was a technical marvel in its day, and still has its fans, it isn't going to resolve 100% sharp on a modern camera (24MP APS-C and 50MP FF have similar sensor pixel sizes). The 1.4 and 2x extenders are mostly a relic from the days of slide photography where you couldn't enlarge your slide and had to get the magnification done at capture time rather than later. Our modern cameras outresolve even many modern lenses, never mind 20-year-old ones, and once it is out-resolved then sticking an extender on just makes a bigger blurrier noiser image. See File:How to take Hi-Resolution Macro Studio Photographs of Insects and Plants - By Sam Droege at USGS BIML.webm and File:How to Take Macro Photographs of Insects USGS BIML Lab2.pdf for how the USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory took their photos. They used the same lens, without extension tube, and a 20MP camera and only 125 to 250 ISO. -- Colin (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who is the addresee of this comment. Apart from the video and the PDF there is nothing new to me here. And regarding the equipment, if you don't mind I'll decide con my own what equipment I use for which shot. I often play around with different variables and when I liked the result I uploaded it to Commons. And please, noun a similar lens of this century that I should use instead of the MP-E 65mm, because I don't know anyone of this type which is superior, even 20 years later. Poco a poco (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info on the compound eye

The compound eyes of an insect are composed of ommatidia, which are usually hexagonal in shape. You can see the hexagons in this macro shot. So why is the eye of this butterfly composed of many perfect circles? I think it is because it has been lit by a ring flash, which tends to produce a circle in any mirror-reflective surface (see human eye and patterned ring). The hundreds of circles here are not the shape of the eye facets, but hundreds of reflections of the ring flash. The actual shape of the eye facets is not visible. The flash rings are also visible in the eyes of this spider. Apart from the overall softness of the image, one reason the hexagonal eye facets don't stand out also caused by the flash. Fashion photographers use a (larger) ring flash to shoot some of their work because the direct light can be very flattering to their model. Unlike side (or top) lighting, front lighting like this will tend to hide surface details (a model's pores, spots or hairs). It also helps reduce the 3D of the face, making noses and chins less prominent. Cheekbones can be emphasized by makeup and some Photoshopping. But this is all exactly what we don't want for macro insect photography. We want side lighting to bring out all the horrid texture (eye facets, spiracles, hairs) and to give the subject a real 3D feel. If you look at the insects at USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory, you can see many have been photographed with a twin flash, lit from the sides or above. The abdomen of this bee and the iridescent eyes of a robber fly are all brought about by side-lighting. A ring flash is great for photographing banknotes, but not insects. -- Colin (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I was swaying in favour, but I have to agree with Colin. The FP he references is much sharper. Perhaps Poco a poco can challenge Colin's techncail arguments? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but per Colin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Regretful Oppose Per others. --StellarHalo (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Per my answer above. I already put my macro lens back in the bottom of a cupboard and already regret having uploaded anything. I may give it a try again in 8 years. Poco a poco (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poco a poco, don't sulk. You've uploaded lots of educationally useful and interesting macro photos last month. I think you made some poor choices about equipment (the 2x extender and the ring flash), but no harm in experimenting and learning from mistakes. That lens is a difficult beast and I've never read anything to suggest that getting good results from it is going to be very hard work and always with a high failure:success ratio. The USGS bee folk show it is capable of producing good results. This kind of photography is challenging, and I'd expect a learning curve of months to a year, not four weeks. -- Colin (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Hesperia_comma,_Hartelholz,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2020-06-28,_DD_113-140_FS.jpg&oldid=430269512"