Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wolf spider focus bracket series02.jpg

Wolf Spider Focus Bracket


I'm rather proud of this image as it has largely overcome the huge problem of shallow DOF in very close macro work. This image was taken at almost my lens' minimum focal distance (1:1 macro) and a single image taken at f/11 would show only the very top of it's head in focus with the rest rapidly declining into a blur. By taking a focus bracket I was able to achieve nearly prefect DOF without the problems of diffraction caused by very small apertures (f/22 and beyond). I had to taken several series before I was able to shoot the entire set without the subject moving (yes he was definitely alive!). The image not only illustrates a Wolf Spider well, it provides an interesting illustration for the Depth of Field and macro photography articles.


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 05:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support It's a good and encyclopedic picture. However, I would like to see a version that has no shadow and shows the entire spider (the legs are somewhat cut off). Thanks!  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  05:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought someone would bring this up - including the legs would have meant that a focus bracket would have been largely unnecessary (the spider has long legs) and therefore this image wouldn't have been usefull in illustrating this technique. Also the extreme closeup provides an interesting look at the spider's face. --Fir0002 07:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind missing the legs, but I'd prefer seeing the whole opisthosoma, if that's the word. ~ trialsanderrors 07:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * question - where there 2 light sources? Is that why the shadows are inconsistently dark? Debivort 06:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, natural light (sunlight) and a shoe mounted flash --Fir0002 07:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * weak oppose, I'd prefer an image that shows the whole body, but damn that's detailed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm willing to support this picture as a very good enc illustration of focus brackting when it is put in the right article and a proper reference is made to it in the text. This does not happen in the articles on depth-of-field and macro photography, where the photo is just a "decorative" element. Alvesgaspar 12:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why a reference needs to be made in the text, the image is perfectly in context with the article and contains an explanatory caption. --Fir0002 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In scientific texts it is a common practise to refer to and discuss all figures, since they are used exclusively to illustrate concepts or to show results, never to decorate. This way the attention of the reader is drawn to them at the proper time and details that may not be easily perceived or understood are explained. In the present case, and following Dschven suggestion, it seems you will have to re-write the article on bracketing ;-). Alvesgaspar 09:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Actually I already tried to move the picture arond to the appropriate sections. But I didn't notice that it wasn't even used in the bracketing article. Anyway, its use in the main article Photography was the most purely decorative of them all and thus I removed it from that article. The use in Insect is questionable too, as the capion basically just says this is not an insect :-). Well, its a really nice picture, but I think Fir got a little overly enthusiastic, sticking it in any article possibly imaginable (except for the bracketing article, oh irony). If this is put in bracketing, could some pictures from the focus series be uploaded too, to illustrate the composition process? That woul make a really great addition! --Dschwen 13:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note the context in the article (Insect): Other terrestrial arthropods, such as centipedes, millipedes, scorpions and spiders, are sometimes confused with insects. Thanks for pointing out the bracketing page - I had no idea it existed and the image now resides there. I'll try upload an image from the series sometime today --Fir0002 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but isn't this picture a bit too special for that purpose? After all it just shows the body of one spider, not even the legs, largely contributing to its overall appearance. Let's either replace it with a more representative pic, or remove it to avoid confusion. --Dschwen 09:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because legs are cut off - that hurts! (The enc, that is... :-) Manual stitching, I assume? Impressive, even though it is not perfect. (Will reconsider vote if Dschwen's suggestion above is fulfilled.) --Janke | Talk 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I could understand that comment if it's primary reason was to illustrate Wolf Spider, but it's not. It's main purpose is as a focus bracket and I only added it to the other insect related articles because it has such unusually high DOF that it makes a great macro photo. --Fir0002 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But after splitting the nominations this pictures primary reason is to illustrate Wolf Spider, isn't it. Because the series below does a much better job at illustrating a focus bracket... --Dschwen 09:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well apparently it is, but perhaps you'd noticed that the image doesn't even appear on Wolf Spider making your claim a little groundless :-) --Fir0002 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So whats your point? The image isn't in the most obvious articles? Your are starting to confuse me here. I added it to wolf spider for the reasons states in my support vote a little down the page. --Dschwen 09:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - It's an amazing image, but I really want to see what the legs look like in that detail. --Arctic Gnome 19:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like the extended depth of field, but the legs are cut off, and the double shadows are unattractive. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Uploaded a single frame --Fir0002 01:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I think those opposing this image because "the legs are cut off!" are missing the point. A great illustration of focus bracketing - maybe a three-image composite with a close focus, far focus and the bracketed shot would be an even better way to show the effect? --YFB ¿  03:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A very reluctant Neutral. Used in the spider article, it has a problem with leg cropping.  Used in a photo article, is not as illustrative as it should be because it only shows the final product.  A mosaic showing the different frames and their composite would be more illustrative.  It's so nice I'd like to see it for POTD, but it's not quite the perfect photo for any article. --Dgies 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support sequence with preference for the one with the composite in the middle. --Dgies 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. What about a Brady Bunch-style compilation, with the composite image in the middle?--ragesoss 05:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Anyway, even if this pic now illustrates the Wolf spider article I think it deserves FP for its excellent technical quality. Why does every FP have to show the entire animal? Close-ups focussing on certain body parts have just as much value (if not more). --Dschwen 09:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral The only thing I do like is the high quality but I would like it better on like a rock or something outdoorsee, and a full body shot.-- ¿ Why  1  9  9  1  ESP. 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. WOW! That's amazingly detailed. This is stunning! Great job! Ilikefood 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wolf spider focus bracket series.jpg

 * Support the series. Very good illustration of focus bracket. However, I would prefer having the final picture in the last frame. It seems more logical to me to have the first photo of the set (focus on top), followed by the last one, and then the final result after combining the frames. Glaurung 07:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Series if it is put in the focus bracket article. There, it has high enc. --Janke | Talk 09:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support whatever arrangement of the source images and final composite that everyone thinks is the best. I think it does a wonderful job of illustrating the bracketing article, and therefore the leg argument has little significance in this nomination. But of course, Fir, if you really wanted to blow people away, you could pick a smaller specimen that allowed for extremely close-up macro photography and showed the subject in its entirety. -- Tewy  23:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support any series. It is an excellent illustration of the technique. Alvesgaspar 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Moved series as a seperate nom to help clarify position --Fir0002 07:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Forgive my amateur attempt, but would something along these lines help explain the focus bracket concept? Pstuart84 Talk 12:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work, but personally I don't think it would be very enc as the process of combining the images is much more complex then rectangular sections (it involves manually erasing away between two layers and finding the points where the focus in one image ends and where the second image begins). I appreciate that what you have made is just a simplified representation, but all the same I can't say I'd prefer it - but others may disagree --Fir0002 22:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support this gorgeous photo / series of photos. (Do I need a username for my vote to count?)  I came across this because I'm trying to figure out how to use the focus bracketing on my camera to use on the lovely jumping spider now wandering across my windowsill! Tracy Hall 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do need an account. Please see Why create an account?. -- Tewy  23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks--I remembered that I did once create an account. Tracy Hall 05:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 01:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)