Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Eriophora sp..jpg

Eriophora sp.

 * Reason:Best image in the article. Subject is tiny (this is > 2:1). Fir's image in the article has the wrong ID (I've told him about it). Can't tell the two possible species apart from the photograph.
 * Articles this image appears in:Eriophora
 * Creator:Noodle snacks

--jjron (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually I'm relatively confident in the ID - it was done by Martyn Robinson a naturalist at the Australian Museum. Whey do you say it is so small? If your talking about this site then I think you'd need to bear in mind it says "body" length - the length of the legs is several times that of the body. Compare their estimate of a huntsman - I regularly see specimens of about 8cm leg span and occasionally even larger. --Fir0002 12:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and Weak Oppose Nice lighting but poor sharpness. Either find a larger specimen or get an MPE :) --Fir0002 12:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have an MP-E? The depth of field is just shallow, makes no difference between it and the tamron 180mm sharpness wise. The body length is up to 6-7mm, as various websites specify. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose it's not entirely in focus. Looks like your DOF is too shallow. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is easy to take a shot of a 6cm long damsel fly with most of it in focus. It isn't technically possible for a live, moving, subject closer to 1cm long. The same standards should not be applied. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support A well-lit, nicely composed shot that's just short of full support. I can't help thinking we're getting way too hung up on techincal issues here at FPC. Whatever happened to striking and eye-catching as valid support criteria? I'm only "weak" on this one due to the slightly overpowering key lighting from the left that's knocked it slightly out of balance, but I do find this approach much more compelling than basic technical correctness. --mikaultalk 00:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose left corner lighting, sharpness and DOF. --Muhammad (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)