Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Musca domestica Portrait.jpg

Housefly Portrait edit

Original - Portrait of a Housefly (Musca domestica)

Reason: It is quite detailed. About 4:1 magnification. 30 image stack.
Articles this image appears in: Housefly, Fly, Eye
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replacement of a full body shot with a portrait in Taxoboxes is not a good idea. Otherwise nice picture! Reminds me of File:Caliphrodae_head.jpg --Dschwen 08:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shuffled the images. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support How did you manage? ET's, reversing, both? Frozen, killed? --Muhammad(talk) 08:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MP-E. I found it dead. [1] is a really good read. I think you could probably achieve MP-E magnification with bellows and a reversed prime lens. Not as convenient though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So have you purchased the MP-E? --Muhammad(talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have, thanks to Kevin's (imo) silly economic stimulus payouts. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aww... lucky you ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 03:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I paid years and years of taxes in Australia and I missed out on his little bonus. Life isn't fair! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot, useful addition to Fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darxus (talk • contribs) 18:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Beautiful shot. There seems to be some haloing and other odd effects from the focus-stacking though. Do you have a non-focus-stacked verison? Personally, I find focus-stacking hairy insects to be next to impossible. The only way to get a decent result is doing it by hand, and even then it's often an exercise in frustration. Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The depth of field is ridiculously thin on a non stacked version. Unfortunately some artifacts are unavoidable (slightly out of focus hairs effect other in focus parts). I do have a non-stacked version, which I can upload if you like. The depth of field is ridiculously thin though. File:Tapinoma sessile.jpg is at slightly higher magnification and should give you some idea. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ support Minor stacking anomalies don't detract at all from the impact and obvious EV. I was going to weak support due to the slightly odd composition but that would also be a bit petty... would be nice to see a version cropped slightly from the right though... --mikaul^talk 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the cropping suggestion.—Darxus (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fly is facing (slightly) to the right. Cropping from the right would be a major mistake of the composition. Franklin.vp 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - See reply below. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support You almost make the dang thing look cute. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Stimulating the Japanese economy, aren't we? MER-C 08:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Will be expecting ridiculously good macros in future. What about the entire body of a fly in full focus? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ until cropped per suggestion of two previous commenters. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cropped per mikaul (slightly from right). Noodle snacks (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fly is facing (slightly) to the right. Cropping from the right would be a major mistake of the composition. Franklin.vp 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We tend to crop images for EV. Rule of thirds is not an absolute here, and if you're going to take it to aesthetics, I prefer the crop over the original. The dead space really was very dead, and the closer perspective does engage the viewer more. There's never been a problem with keeping alternative versions on the server, and your favourite photo editing suite's smudge tool will be enough to recreate the dead space almost exactly should you ever need it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support another great shot. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Sarcophagid fly Portrait.jpg --jjron (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]