This image was exceptionally difficult to capture, as the insects are only about 10mm long and tracking them in order to get a focused closeup is not easy! Taken at the extreme macro end of my Sigma 150 macro, the DOF is perhaps not ideal but I don't think it detracts very much from the image.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite obvious (and almost inevitable) shortcomings: blur, shallow DOF, uneven background... (I could go on forever ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All kidding aside, why would uneven background be a shortcoming? It contrasts well with the subject. And IMO the DOF thing is way overrated. The key point is that all interesting parts are in focus and no information is lost, with information taken in a sens that no otherwise surprising details are omitted. --Dschwen 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you missed Janke's smiley!! - Adrian Pingstone 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, i saw the smiley, hence the all kidding aside thing. Apparently I was misunderstanding the degree of irony here. Shortcomings are negligeble vs. Made up shortcomings. --Dschwen 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How the heck did you catch that? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of persistence and about 3 days of shooting :-) --Fir0002 07:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 days - that's serious stamina... from Fir and the hoverflies ;-) --YFB ¿ 05:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Tewy 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Excellent capture. Will support if information about where it is taken (place or region, even though I can guess :)) is added to the image page for "encyclopaedic" factor.--Melburnian 07:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Fir0002 08:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice work--Melburnian 12:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, well, if it still means anything, this one is really excellent. Support. --Dschwen 08:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alvesgaspar 09:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, of course. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice.. Things get a bit messy with not quite being sure where one fly ends and the next begins, but not a major problem. However, you've replaced the lead image with this one. I'm not sure that its the ideal image for the infobox as there are other images with simpler compositions that would illustrate the hoverfly better. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Later comment - of course it's difficult to tell where one fly ends and the next begins! They're mating! DS 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Strong Support I don't think any DOF issues relate to what is essentially a clear and beautiful image of a rare occurance. LE✆N 11:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think it is more of a somewhat rare image of a common occurance! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OMG insect pr0n!!! I mean Support. So which one is the male and which one is the female?? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 11:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The male on is on top. In most hoverflies the eyes touch in males. This is most likely Melangyna viridiceps (Macquart, 1847). It is often referred to in Australia as the Common Hoverfly and belongs to the subfamily Syrphinae of the family Syrphidae. -- Lycaon 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wow! Incredible shot! - Adrian Pingstone 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is a completely superfluous SUPPORT This one is astounding. --Bridgecross 14:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dont want to sound like a broken record - but wow. One thing though, really minor, couldn't you remove that nagging little grey dot on the far left. Not important, but begins to distract from the flies themselves. Chris_huh^talk 16:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, sorry about that - can't believe I didn't see it! --Fir0002 23:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• :-O Support because I couldn't oppose. Impossible image; good work Fir. *audience applauds Fir* | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unbelievable! Just gorgeous. -Thegreenj 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The quality isn't incredible, but it must be incredibly hard to capture. NauticaShades 10:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, buzzbuzz. --Golbez 16:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Outstanding, 'nuff said. Pstuart84 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above.--Andrew c 18:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support how the hell did you get this picture? --Calibas 22:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This picture is simply amazing. I agree with all the support. --RandomOrca2 01:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Terrific! - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Supersuperfluousupport, I had to vote even though it's a given... beautiful work. --YFB ¿ 05:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, beautiful picture! must have been a killer to capture. --the marble 19:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great work Fir, a difficult shot. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, impressive pic! - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! For obvious reasons. --Tewy 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support awesome, good job Fir.--Yarnalgo 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hoverflies mating midair.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]