Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Empis livida (aka).jpg

Dance fly Empis livida

This image shows an about 0.35 inch (9 mm) long dance fly of the species Empis livida. It's a male. The animal sat at my white-painted balcony balustrade for a few seconds.

Self-Nominate and no vote. - Aka 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is absolutely awesome, and it has been identified! That must be hard with over 3000 species in a family. Great work, I'm looking forward to future contributions. --liquidGhoul 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, I didn't recognise your name. You have taken some of my favourite photos of Wikipedia. :) --liquidGhoul 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agreee, awsome. -Ravedave 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality. Illustrative. Very interesting. - The ideal featured picture! Mikeo 17:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, amazing. —Keenan Pepper 20:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pic.Nnfolz 20:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would prefer a greater DOF, but this is a very insignificant complaint. Stunning photo, exemplifies the best that Wiki has to offer. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent. sikander 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Stunning, and highly encyclopaedic. --Yummifruitbat 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...although on a second viewing, it would be nice if the dark area in the background of the right hand side could be made properly white. --Yummifruitbat 21:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the darker area from the backround just several minutes ago (without compromising the quality of the picture). ---Majestic- 10:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This I do not understand. I don't want to sound like someone whining, but how is it that when I nominated an image with a white bg (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Huntsman spider), people thought the white background was not a good idea. Is it because mine lacked a shadow? I would appreciate any feedback as it would help me with future composition. --Fir0002 22:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it doesn't look like this was cut out from another background; the inclusion of the shadow makes it looks more real. Also, with such a small subject, any background will be very blurred, so it doesn't matter what is behind it, it would only be distracting. --liquidGhoul 22:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A photgrapher of your caliber should be able see the main difference between the two: shadows. Yours lacked any shadow making the picture look unnatural. Compare also the snail that is an FP, that also does not look like it is randomly floating. -Ravedave
I have no problem with white backgrounds for images such as this, and I loved the detail in your spider photo, Fir, but the lack of shadows in your shot really looked very strange. Hopefully you'll spot another opportunity soon enough, and be able to produce a more 'realistic' looking shot with the appropriate shadows. Good luck! --Yummifruitbat 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This insect looks like it's in real space. Fir, your edits makes the subject look like it was cut out of a magazine. ~MDD 46 96 01:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks, everyone, I see now that the shadow is the difference. But I think a lot of you are missing that this is not one of "my edits" but what the photo came out as. I did not cut that picture out as I pointed out in the original nom. Anyway thanks, --Fir0002 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. How did you manage to have it hold still long enough to focus and frame the shot? --Dschwen 06:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Brilliant. Superb. Awesome. --Thelb ⁴ 07:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice work. --jjron 10:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sensational work as usual Aka! --Fir0002 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is a perfect image. It almost looks to perfect, but I like that ;) Viva La V i e Boheme
Strong support - Wow, what a shot. Good work. Support due to high image quality and encyclopedic content. HighInBC 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. It's good.
...too good. --Tewy 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:FILENAME.JPG --Fir0002 08:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]