Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sandalodes jumping spider.jpg

Sandalodes Spider
Absolutely tiny subject at 10mm in size, by far the smallest I've taken photos of. The difficulty in size was compounded by the fact that the little critter never stayed still!!


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure this has some kind of DOF issue... 8thstar 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Shot at f/13 for as much DOF as possible without compromising sharpness, I feel this image has plenty of DOF. You have to take into consideration the subject matter here. --Fir0002 02:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, DOF is as good as it was going to get. you could have killed it and used a focus bracket  but its good. I think i'd support a tighter crop, a bit too much white for my taste. -Fcb981 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone know what species this is? 8thstar 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually contacted a few australian entomologists and they all said that it is probably an undescribed species. --Fir0002 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - better than the previous, but this, too has an artificial feeling - look at the shadows. Fir, have you tried a "shooting tent" to get rid of all shadows? Any thin, white canvas bag should do, the flash is outside the tent, on the inside you will have almost shadowless light... and, it will also keep your cozy critters from running away too far! ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Janke's right about it looking artificial. But other than that, this is a nice shot, especially in terms of the ever-popular DOF-on-small-creatures complaint. It's nice to see the entire body (and half of the legs) in focus. -- Tewy  18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The out-of-focus legs are mirrored by in-focous legs, you can see much of the face, I'm pretty sure a taxonomist would be able to identify the spider from the picture, and, best of all, it's crisp and beautiful. It'd be even better with and extended caption on the page description, though.  Enuja 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. In addition to Janke's comments, I think the encyclopedicity is compromised by this being an unidentified (possibly undescribed) species, where even the genus may not be definitive.  Also, was this taken in January 2006, as stated on the image page, or in 2007 like some of your other recent animal pics? - ragesoss
 * I don't see why the enc is compromised, a literally millions of insects (particularly the very small species) have not been described. But yes you are correct it was taken in 2007 --Fir0002 11:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 08:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  ~  St ep  tr ip   17:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It is interesting, and not so bad, but it is over-sharpened. Althepal 21:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The hind legs are too blur, even for a macro shot. BeefRendang 04:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)