Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polistes May 2013-2.jpg

File:Polistes May 2013-2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2013 at 15:09:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Polistes May 2013-2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polistes May 2013-2.jpg

•  Info A young paper wasp queen guarding her nest after laying the eggs. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support cool. Tomer T (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --JaviP96 20:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose too blurry when viewed at full size --Pine^✉ 21:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Mehdi^Talk 03:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral per Pine per Commons:Image guidelines:Focus and depth of field. DOF is a photographic choice; but the points Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image. The overall image should have clearly defined focus are important for encyclopedic/educational medias. I will oppose if this is in EN:FPC; but here the usage has a more wide scope. JKadavoor Jee 04:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Content is FP, I do not mind the slight absence of sharpness.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support This is a great image with lovely colours and composition. I don't think we should demand focus-stacked images for in-the-field shots. Indeed, a stacked image with hyper-depth-of-focus can cause problems with our 3D depth perception of 2D images. This one is at F10 and going up to F16, say, might bring in more distracting background. en:WP:FP places too much emphasis on boring species-identification images that lack any composition qualities and not enough of behaviour or scene, and of course that is all irrelevant to COM:FP. Colin (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Focus -stacking is irrelevant here. Here the shallow DOF is probably due to the 100mm on a full-frame. Using a longer lens or on a cropped sensor camera will give better results. Boring is just a matter of interest; I usually get bored by subjects that I'm not interested (perspective, tilt, distortion, etc are quite boring for me) . BTW, this is a very interesting subject for me. JKadavoor Jee 16:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Focus stacking is not "irrelevant" because folk are used to seeing focus stacked shots of insects and vote assuming that getting all of a wasp in focus is normal or even desirable. Also see this for why a change in lens focal length or sensor size wouldn't help here. I'm no bug expert so correct me if I'm wrong. But even if the DoF doubled from 0.5mm to 1mm it would make a tiny difference to whether the whole wasp is in focus or not. Look at the image as a whole, as a picture, not as a study in the technicalities of macro photography. This is an image Alvesgaspar should be proud of and if I had taken it, I would put in in a frame on my wall. Colin (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• No offence at all. I said focus-stacking is irrelevant here only because the subject seems moving. Reply on DOF and background blur. A tough topic; so I decided to read a lot prior to make any comment and ended up here: "If all other things being equal, a smaller format will generally have DEEPER depth of field and less background blur than a larger format. This makes sense because smaller format cameras use shorter focal lengths for the same field of view, and therefore similar f-stops mean a smaller physical aperture size: less blur." JKadavoor Jee 06:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article, thanks. The chap doesn't touch on the issues of diffraction though, which appears to be what scares macro photographers off of using smaller apertures, and is an area where I understand full-frame has an advantage. It also generally has an ISO/noise advantage so one could use a smaller aperture (with higher ISO, say) and achieve equivalent diffraction softening and noise as the crop sensor. Also see this and this for why our diffraction fears are over emphasised. Alvesgaspar's D800 with a good lens can apparently outresolve at f22 a Canon 5Dmk3 at any aperture. So, it is complex! Colin (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course; but I wonder whether some reasons why many macro experts still prefer an APS-C. (And, see the comment of Ken Rockwell on diffraction: "For flat subjects, diffraction limits performance at f/16, it's stronger at f/22, and downright soft at f/32, but that's physics. The softening from diffraction at f/32 is less than the improvement you get to depth-of-field for 3-D subjects, and for most macro work, I shoot at f/32.") JKadavoor Jee 11:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Jkadavoor & Colin: thank you for your interest, that is the best compliment for a creator! Concerning the type of camera used for macro, the real advantage in using a full frame type is the quality of the sensor (low noise and diffraction), not the size. The obvious disadvantage is the need for more light (because of the bigger lenses), in situations where light is almost always scarce, due to the need of using small apertures (for dof) and high shutter speeds (for sharpness). The type of lens to choose from depends very much on the situation, Yes, it is true that we get larger dof with small focal distances. But we are then forced, when photographing small subjects, to get very close to them. Which might be impossible (because they fly away) or dangerous (because then sting). Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --High Contrast (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Why this low size in a D800E?. Undersize is not a best practice to fix motion blur. I am sorry --The Photographer (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • @The Photographer. No downsampling was done, just cropping. Please note that the magnification factor only depends on the lens, not on the sensor. The radius of the wasp nest is about 12-15 mm. With a full frame camera, a 1:1 macro lens and a small subject like this one, it is just not possible to fill the whole 24x36 frame with it because we can't bring the lens closer! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I beleave you, you are right, well, its moment to buy a macro lens :) --The Photographer (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose per above. --Ivar (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support. Wow! — Stas1995 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, Very careful.--Jacopo188 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 12:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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