295:. Great. But if you think it's actually illustrating anything more encyclopedic than a resting dragonfly, then you're sadly mistaken. If I wanted to know about how a dragonfly flies then a single frame of flight isn't really telling me much. The hoverflies tells a story by itself that you couldn't catch on the ground, so the unanimous support isn't so surprising, and I would probably support that one myself. When you've nominated as many pictures as you have I'm surprised how personally you take it. I'm not telling you to go out and make a movie of a dragonfly flying, but I am saying that's what you'd need to illustrate its flight. Either that or use a cloud of neutrally buoyant helium-filled soap bubbles and record the airflows in the wake of a dragonfly with stereo photography. That would be truly encyclopedic. :) But seriously. If you really think this is "as good as you're ever going to get" then please just get over yourself. —
356:
nominate here I'm not so sure about, but some I am. And when I took these dragonfly shots I got a little tingle, because I knew I'd just taken a FP. This image is exactly what an FP should be IMO - and I would defend it whole heartedly whether it was mine or someone elses. When someone looks at say the seal nomination below, they're harldy going to be dazzled by it and go wow I bet that's an FP. But for 99% of the population as soon as they see this shot they'll think wow, that's pretty cool, that looks like an FP. At least that is what I strongly feel --
49:
64:
34:
574:
374:? It's information content, not spectacle, that I look for in a FP. Others might give greater weight to spectacular images, but I don't consider it to be of prime importance. I mentioned an animation (or photo showing vorticies) as an example of something that would give real information content to the
365:
I think you'll find I opposed that fuel dump picture, and for a similar reason: despite it being spectacular, it doesn't have a lot of information content. All your image shows is that a dragonfly has its front wings down while the back ones are up. I'm not saying it's unencyclopedic, just that it's
355:
It is because of my experience on FPC, not despite it, that I'm so aggravated by the response. After three years of nominating, commenting on other images and finding out how other people in the community view other images IMO I have a pretty good understanding of what an FP is. Some of the images I
324:
very well, it makes for an excellent illustration of the Tau
Emerald, and indeed of a dragonfly (so much so that I've added it to the dragonfly article). Because the remarkable thing about this image is that it has all the features and detail available in a stationary shot, but it also combines this
290:
You're missing the point. You seem to think it should be featured just because it's technically a difficult shot of an encyclopedic support. And yes, technically, it's a good shot. Bravo. Congratulations for catching a dragonfly in mid flight. Now we can have a photo on
224:
I know the standard is pretty high for insect pictures nowadays, but still...the dragonfly in the image is actually in flight. It has to take some crazy skill to get a sharp, detailed image of such a fast-moving subject. I'm willing to overlook the minor artifacting.
77:
This spectacular shot has excellent enc and technical quality. In order to get this shot I had to use my 70-200 with it's rapid autofocus, and the flash was used to freeze the rapidly moving wings. The last image for a while, but certainly not the least.
169:
Looks like you needed to crop alot so we are seeing some degraded quality, it could just be artifacts from the (slow synced?) flash but the quality's a little sketchy. Do you have any others?? Merry
Christmas to you too fir; everyone: happy holidays!
459:
With all due respect Pengo, I'm not sure how you can claim that the shot is of only equal or lesser ev than a stationary shot; here, the wings--in flight--are distinctly arranged, with the front and back pairs moving in opposition to each other.
325:
with a rare and specatular view of it in flight - giving it a massive wow factor. Hoverflies mate sitting down on a leaf or perched on a branch, but getting a shot of them doing so in flight is spectacular - the same rationale applies here.
254:
article, but the enc value for a dragonfly article is tremendous as it shows you something you can't see with your eyes - how it uses it's wings for flight. You don't get that from a static perched shot
316:
behaviour be less useful to
Knowledge (XXG) (less encycolpeadic) than an addition to the large gallery of perched shots available in the dragonfly article? You couldn't ask for a more encyclopeadic
337:
276:
378:
article. It was not as a personal request for you to go out and do it. I don't really care if you consider it "possible" with your own equipment. While this photo is a welcome image to
332:- sure it shows a part of a fuel dump (same as my photo shows a part of a dragonfly's flight) but it doesn't show how long this dump goes for, how the flames are moving etc which you
472:, encyclopedic. With the initial quality concerns addressed, Fir0002 packs more information into this picture than a still would provide, with minimal to no loss of quality IMO. --
348:
could be a whole lot more enc if you could somehow slow it down and see how the individual sparks of lighting spread and pulse. What I'm saying is you have to be content with what
607:
329:
597:
17:
602:
583:
566:
521:
509:
490:
481:
448:
427:
396:
386:
360:
299:
285:
268:
259:
245:
233:
212:
195:
174:
161:
138:
116:
560:
538:
345:
241:
Very cool that you caught a dragonfly in flight. But what's it showing that you wouldn't see 10 times better if it were perched? —
517:
I think the enc value and the difficulty involved in taking a shot like this more than mitigates the minor technical problems
392:
OK I give up. If you can't or don't want to see the value in this spectacular photo there's nothing else to say. Farewell --
464:? However, it is the first step--understanding that the four wings on a dragonfly are not all synced together--that is
264:
You don't really get it from a static flying shot either. You'd need a sequence of shots, or an animation to show it. —
208:
insect in flight :-\. But There is some kind of artifacting and I think it takes away from the full size quality, IMO -
444:
340:
image, - how long does that cloud stay there for? How does it dissipate? How large does it expand? I'd need a movie.
304:
I do not see how you can claim that this isn't an encyclopeadic image when clearly it makes a fine illustration for
341:
312:
encyclopeadic than a shot of it stationary on a branch. How can this be? How can a shot showing interesting and
273:
Come on, that's asking a bit much isn't it? This is pretty damn good and as good as you're ever going to get.
477:
328:
I could only understand your demands for an animation if you'd made the same demands elsewhere. For example
526:
555:
534:
124:
original shows extensive JPEG artifacts along the wings and the tail, the alternative is somewhat blurry.
382:(and whatever other articles it is in) I don't see it giving people any great insight into the subject. —
418:
Per
CillianXC. The quality is sharp, the fact that it's in-flight make that all the more commendable.-
462:
Wouldn't the complete motion of flight just be an intuitively obvious interpolation from this still
370:
as high as a still (perched) image could be. What other actual information does it actually add to
473:
550:
530:
132:
279:
for what they are worth. Now I dunno... people just seem to be making up excuses to oppose.
275:
I'm just still in shock with the reception of this photo, once upon a time such photos were
153:
48:
440:
423:
486:
Fair enough, but I personally think a line drawing would illustrate that more clearly. —
336:
get from the kind of slow motion movie you want for the dragonfly flight. Same deal for
505:
63:
591:
379:
375:
371:
321:
305:
292:
251:
227:
87:
33:
393:
357:
282:
256:
192:
127:
113:
103:
56:
209:
171:
147:
580:
487:
436:
419:
383:
366:
not a lot of extra information content, especially considering the quality is
296:
265:
242:
573:
501:
468:
necessarily obvious; b/c Fir0002's picture shows this, it is perfectly, and
91:
308:
and indeed dragonflies. What you are saying is that somehow this image is
344:, how fast is he moving? How high did he go? What happened next? Even
95:
518:
435:, high encylopaedic value and "good enough" technical quality. --
187:
perfectly focussed close up images of a dragonfly in
500:I really like the dragonfly captured in flight. --
8:
578:Promoted Image:Tau Emerald inflight edit.jpg
200:Yes, that does make sense. Seeing as I have
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
608:Featured picture nominations/December 2007
457:and strongly urge others to do so as well.
250:Well primarily it wouldn't fit into the
62:
47:
32:
548:Good composition, very encyclopedic. --
320:. Beyond the fact that it illustrates
179:Umm hello?! Reality check! Have I got
7:
80:Merry Christmas to everyone on FPC!!
598:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
59:- removed minor noise/artefacting
572:
204:perfectly focused pictures of
84:Articles this image appears in
1:
584:02:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
567:23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
522:12:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
510:05:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
491:06:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
482:04:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
449:14:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
428:12:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
397:01:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
387:12:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
361:08:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
300:04:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
286:23:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
269:07:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
260:05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
246:05:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
234:03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
213:13:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
196:04:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
175:03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
162:02:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
139:01:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
117:01:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
603:Featured picture nominations
352:possible, not some fantasy.
624:
44:, in flight over a creek
416:Support original/Edit 1
70:
60:
45:
454:Strong Support Edit 1
222:Weak support original
191:?! No Fcb, I don't --
66:
51:
36:
28:Tau Emerald in flight
111:Support as nominator
314:rarely photographed
71:
61:
46:
542:
529:comment added by
458:
280:
40:- A Tau Emerald,
615:
576:
563:
558:
553:
524:
456:
274:
232:
230:
135:
130:
42:Hemicordulia tau
623:
622:
618:
617:
616:
614:
613:
612:
588:
587:
561:
556:
551:
228:
226:
137:
133:
128:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
621:
619:
611:
610:
605:
600:
590:
589:
570:
569:
543:
515:Support either
512:
498:Support either
495:
494:
493:
451:
433:Support edit 1
430:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
353:
326:
236:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
164:
146:per AzaToth. —
141:
125:
119:
107:
106:
101:
98:
85:
82:
75:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
620:
609:
606:
604:
601:
599:
596:
595:
593:
586:
585:
582:
579:
575:
568:
565:
564:
559:
554:
547:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
523:
520:
516:
513:
511:
507:
503:
499:
496:
492:
489:
485:
484:
483:
479:
475:
474:Malachirality
471:
467:
463:
455:
452:
450:
446:
445:contributions
442:
438:
434:
431:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
398:
395:
391:<sigh: -->
390:
389:
388:
385:
381:
380:insect flight
377:
376:insect flight
373:
372:insect flight
369:
364:
363:
362:
359:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
322:insect flight
319:
315:
311:
307:
306:insect flight
303:
302:
301:
298:
294:
293:insect flight
289:
288:
287:
284:
278:
272:
271:
270:
267:
263:
262:
261:
258:
253:
252:Insect flight
249:
248:
247:
244:
240:
237:
235:
231:
223:
220:
214:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
197:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
177:
176:
173:
168:
165:
163:
160:
157:
156:
152:
149:
145:
142:
140:
136:
131:
123:
120:
118:
115:
112:
109:
108:
105:
102:
99:
97:
93:
89:
88:Insect flight
86:
83:
81:
76:
73:
72:
69:
68:Alternative 1
65:
58:
54:
50:
43:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
577:
571:
549:
545:
531:Benjamint444
514:
497:
469:
465:
461:
453:
432:
415:
367:
349:
333:
317:
313:
309:
277:acknowledged
238:
221:
205:
201:
188:
184:
180:
166:
158:
154:
150:
143:
121:
110:
79:
67:
52:
41:
37:
27:
546:Support all
525:—Preceding
229:CillaИ ♦ XC
592:Categories
155:discussion
519:Benjamint
92:Dragonfly
539:contribs
527:unsigned
342:And this
38:Original
394:Fir0002
358:Fir0002
283:Fir0002
257:Fir0002
193:Fir0002
114:Fir0002
104:Fir0002
100:Creator
57:Fir0002
470:highly
239:Oppose
210:Fcb981
189:flight
172:Fcb981
167:Oppose
148:αἰτίας
144:Oppose
122:oppose
96:Flight
74:Reason
53:Edit 1
581:MER-C
552:Shark
488:Pengo
437:Aqwis
420:DMCer
384:Pengo
334:could
318:photo
297:Pengo
266:Pengo
243:Pengo
183:than
16:<
557:face
535:talk
506:talk
502:Mbz1
478:talk
441:talk
424:talk
346:this
338:this
330:here
310:less
181:more
134:Toth
94:and
562:217
466:not
368:not
206:any
185:two
129:Aza
55:by
594::
541:)
537:•
508:)
480:)
447:)
443:–
426:)
350:is
281:--
255:--
90:,
533:(
504:(
476:(
439:(
422:(
202:0
170:-
159:•
151:•
126:→
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
