Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saperda carcharias 02 (MK).jpg

File:Saperda carcharias 02 (MK).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2014 at 14:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A lateral view of a Saperda carcharias, a species of longhorn beetles. Sadly one of the antennae was broken but I think thats not that annoying from this side. c/u/n by me, mathias K 14:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 14:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The focus is very soft on the remaining antenna and somewhat soft on some of the legs. First I suspected it was due to DOF issues, but it is taken at f/13, so I guess it cannot be that? Could it be motion blur? The exposure time was 1/60 s, a little slow. Whatever, the reason is, it is a pity as it distracts from the body, which has a very nice detail level. Light and composition is also good. Subject is interesting. I did not know about the longhorn beetle and that it is actually considered a serious pest for poplar trees. Not sure I can support due to the soft focus issues, but it was interesting and I learned something. --Slaunger (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slaunger! First of all, thank you for your review. It was a pleasure to read because of your last point: "it was interisting and I learned something". Thats really cool!! Cause one of the most importent things in taking pictures for me is that the pic makes us want to know more about something. And if that is the case, then it is much "better" than any fp-sign could be! :-)

To the technical thing: The soft focus issue you mentioned is in fact a dof effect. When I was taking the pic my first intention was to get the max possible magnification with the whole bettle on the sensor. To get this I need to go as close as possible to the bettle. In this actual pic the distance between sensor and bettle was ~45-50cm. With my 90mm macro and f/13 this means a total dof of ~1,0 - 1,3cm. Now you need to keep in mind that the beetle is pretty "big" with ~4cm body length, and when it was sitting like this it is also wider then 1,5cm from "edge to edge". So you see, even with f/13 it isn´t possible to get the whole body in focus with this resulting magnification/resolution. I hope I could explain myself, my intention and the picture passably... ;-) Regards mathias K 18:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely, and I am glad you appreciate the review, although I did not support:) It surprised me that the f/13 is the limiting factor, but you are right, I just checked with an online DOF calculator. It appears that if you had moved away to 75 cm you would have gotten a 2.5 times larger DOF, at a cost of approximately half the pixelage on the main body. Maybe it would have been a better compromise, but it is so easy to be smart in hindsight. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not enough DOF. Choose a more suitable lens or step back as Slaunger suggested. :) J e e 03:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I got the dof point and youre right. It is very narrow. But as I wrote above, there isn't much room for more dof at this magnification. When, for instance, shooting portraits with f/2.8 the focus should match the eyes amd the rest should be oof. Its nothing else here, I had to choose between max magnification, with a limited dof which fits the eyes and the body, or less magnification with more dof... It looks like I choose the wrong one. ;-) Greetings mathias K 07:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]