Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Argiope pulchella

Argiope pulchella
Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2015  at 04:58:08 (UTC)
 * Reason:One of the most detailed photograph of a Argiope sp. so far
 * Articles in which this image appears:Argiope pulchella
 * FP category for this image:Arachnids
 * Creator:Jeevan Jose, Kerala, India


 * Support as nominator – J e e  04:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Gosh, it's hairy. Hafspajen (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Very clear, nice colorful but unobtrusive background, good color in spider itself. Interesting detail of smaller spider -- offspring or dinner? CorinneSD (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Husband. He is signaling desperately not to be mistaken for dinner..., ("shuddering"), vibrating with the webb... and some get eaten too.Hafspajen (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes; their mating behaviour is complicated. Sometimes, the males are being eaten by the female; otherwise they survive as handicapped to ensure their sperms are used. :) J e e  02:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dangerous business. Hafspajen (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - I find the background much too distracting and the photo is not of comparable quality to the other featured pictures of arachnids. Having both sexes in the picture is excellent EV for sexual dimorphism, but I find it a pity that the male is blurry. --Ebertakis (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish to withdraw this nomination if any one can show me a more detailed picture of an Argiope sp. here or in Commons. I've on idea how is it possible to focus two subjects if they in two planes, especially one is restless. J e e  02:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No need for that Jee, it's a fair point that has been raised. However, I'm with you on this. The quality is as good as it gets and while the background is slightly distracting, the EV makes up for it. The male in the background adds context to the image too. Support --Muhammad (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The depth of field could be improved by increasing the f-stop. Probably flash would be necessary in that case, which would darken the background, too. But I hate it when "could/would/should" enter the discussion, especially when it comes to a nature shot. Believe me, I've been there and I know that these damn webs move immensely at even the slightest of air motions bringing the spider in and out of focus all the time and that the critters rarely do you the favor of staying put. You have my utmost respect for capturing this shot, but you also have my confidence that you can do better next time. By the way, I think I like this other photo better. The background is somewhat better and the male is much sharper. Add it as an alt? --Ebertakis (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ebertakis for the detailed review. This is one of my last work with my old Panasonic FZ28; so had its limitations. More DOF will end up in more busy background without a flash which I don't have. We considered the other version in Commons; but the female is not much sharp in that view. The male is more in focus there only because the focus is in between the male and female. Here, in the current nomination, we can even see the two main eyes of her. Note that Argiope sp. have poor visibility and their eyes are less prominent compared to other spiders. They detect the presence of their prey from the motion on their webs. They are connected by a string to the web even while rest under leaf outside their web. ( I will be away in weekend; can't comment before next Tuesday.) J e e  02:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support EV was important for my support on Commons and is even more important here on WP. There are trade-offs with increasing f-stop (diffraction, subject isolation, higher ISO noise). Considering the male is actively moving, and in a different plane, I don't see this being improved. -- Colin°Talk 14:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I'm okay with the background, and the EV is very high. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

-- - The Herald (here I am) 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 6 supports, 1/2 opposes.. Enough consensus..Promoted... - The Herald (here I am) 12:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it's 6 supports and a half oppose. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I left Muhammad. But was doubting whether to include that 1/2 or not. Thanks.. - The Herald (here I am) 13:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, why someone would count a weak oppose as a half support. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then?? Only six.. - The Herald (here I am) 13:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it's "6 supports, 1/2 opposes". Armbrust The Homunculus 13:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)