Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Araneus heroine.jpg

Araneus Heroine

 * Reason:Clear, technically sound and enc image of an interesting spider
 * Articles this image appears in:Araneus
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Very nice macro. I do think that for animals such as this, it would be great (probably a bit much to ask?) if we could get a series of two or three images from different angles that we could feature together. For example, from above, from the side, and looking head on near ground level. I know this angle is ideal from a DOF perspective, but it is much harder to get a feel for what it looks like in three dimensions. As it is, though, I think it is still worthy of FP. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm that's an interesting idea and something I'll bear in mind for future studio work, but haven't got a front view of this spider - only got a side view (which I can add if you think it's worth it) --Fir0002 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak support This image suggests it could be bigger and have a more inclusive DOF.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually this specimen (and quite possibly the entire species) didn't lend itself to focus bracketing as it moves to much. After taking it out of the freezer it's all curled up and not very photogenic, and once it warms up enough to stretch its legs it starts walking (this shot is taken mid stride). So this is as good as it gets. --Fir0002 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For some reason (probably the similarity to the image linked above) I thought it was a focus bracket of a dead/stunned specimen. For a single shot of a live one, this is excellent.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Durova Charge! 05:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support ewww you have spiders in your freezer? *checks chocolate ice cream for cobwebs* Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support--Avala (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, I do prefer natural backgrounds though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support quality work that meets criteria Capital photographer (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I hate to sound like a raving fir fanboy but another great macro shot Fir. Great encyclopedic quality and a high quality shot. Cat-five - talk 00:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Heh, heh. I love your macros, or all of your photos, Fir. &mdash; Ceran  thor  [Formerly LordSunday] 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. < 2mpix really shows here (just look at how much of the picture is occupied by the body). I miss the taken away pixels and "instinctively" want to magnify the picture. I also find the lighting a bit harsh. Blieusong (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing commons with en:fpc - you're looking at this pic from the wrong perspective. What you should be thinking is great, it's way above 1mpix - not that it is <2mpix as 2mpix is not a guideline at en:fpc. As for the lighting there's nothing I can say other than I'm surprised - the subject is well lit and the shadows are soft, what were you hoping for? --Fir0002 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know en:fpc hasn't the same rules. But I maintain the picture isn't big enough to me to show all the details the bug deserves. Maybe lighting isn't harsh. but flat ? (excuse my poor english). Blieusong (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with you on the lighting, harsh, but not flat. It's very high contrast, but it's not really directional at all; the purely top-down lighting makes it seem somehow sterile and untextured to me. It's not a big enough problem for me to oppose, but I do think it is there. Thegreenj 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as Blieusong. Muhammad (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Blieusong and after some thought. Two other things I don't like are the unnatural background and the top view. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to straighten the record in terms of the "unnatural" background this spider was found in web in the corner of the inside of a building - photographing it there would have simply changed the background to cream rather than white and produced long, deep, shadows. 'Natural' backgrounds do not always entail lush greenery. --Fir0002 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question How big was it? Noodle snacks (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The distance between the the longest pair of legs is approx 4cm --Fir0002 06:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Cute spider.   Spinach Dip  22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)