Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wolf spider white bg.jpg

Wolf Spider
A good image of a Wolf Spider on a white background. All body parts are visible and thus the image has a high enc value.
 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose nice spider/shot but the some of the legs are clearly blurry which takes away from an otherwise fine image. &mdash; Arjun  01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is all but unavoidable in a macro image (see Macro photography) --Fir0002 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the article you reference contains an image proving the contrary, by... ..oh, right you :-). Well I guess this speciment didn't hold still as nicely as the other one... --Dschwen 14:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose I'll have to agree with arjun on this one.-- ¿  Why  1  9  9  1  ESP. | Sign Here 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't mind the legs being out of focus. -- Tewy  01:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Itsy Bitsy Spider Oppose Seadog Arjun brought up a valid point. Featured pictures of Wikipedia should not be blurry at all (unless their encyclopedic value significantly outweighs the blurriness or it is a picture that cannot be taken again.... or both). Sadly, another picture of this type of spide could be taken again without the blurriness.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, that's unlikely due to technical limitations in DOF for macro photography --Fir0002 07:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Selective focus often increases the encyclopedic value of a photo by drawing attention to the subject while blurring out irrelevant aspects of the image like background detail. 2) As Fir and others keep saying, getting all of the subject of a macro shot in focus is generally impossible. Debivort 09:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. As has already been pointed out by Fir0002 it is virtually impossible for all parts of the image to be in focus in this type of macro photography, especially on a relatively large beastie like this. The key parts are in strong focus, and at least two of the legs are also fully focussed showing all necessary details. --jjron 07:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose In addition to the DOF problem (could you shoot at f:64?), what bothers me are the double, or "cross" shadows. Fir, maybe we need to start a collection to buy you that white umbrella! ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) I wouldn't complain! Maybe you can convince Wikimedia to part with some of their $800,000! But no I can't shoot at f/64 because the min aperture of my lens is f/22 - and at f/22 the sharpness is unacceptable due to diffraction (I can only imagine what it'd be like at f/64! --Fir0002 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support per nom Tewy and jjron. Definitely one of the best spider images on WP. Debivort 09:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Maybe a good spider image, but not the best Wolf spider image. Repeating subjects tend to get a little boring. --Dschwen 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, which wolf spider image do you think is the best? And bear in mind that this isn't a repeat subject because the last image was an illustration of a focus bracket. --Fir0002 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that only the composed 3-image focus series was promoted, which leaves just one real Wolf spider FP, crawling from its hole. So it was just a percieved repetition. In that case I happily support. Thanks for clearing that up. --Dschwen 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Support okay now I know about Macro photography! Okay so the blurriness to the legs is unavoidable. But I am going to weak support due to others. &mdash; Arjun  14:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Not a bad picture overall, only the shadows are somewhat distracting. How come you've been shooting spiders lately? ;-) | A ndonic O  Talk 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |  A ndonic O  Talk 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support per above. Reywas92 TalkSign Here 02:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Large regions are out of focus and we already know the photographer can produce a better composite through focus bracketing. &mdash;Dgiest c 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it's easy to talk airily of focus bracketing but it's tremendously difficult to do, let alone on a live subject. I did try a full body shot, but he kept moving - the focus brackets I uploaded where the only ones I managed to produce --Fir0002 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Although this is an excellent picture there is something unnatural about the background and the shadows. I have nothing against editing (provided it doesn't fake the subject), I just would like to know what kind of manipulation was used. Alvesgaspar 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to say that no manipulation of the background was used --Fir0002 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But I suppose the spider was moved to a favourable shooting place. Brrr, how did you manage that? Alvesgaspar 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I captured him and put him in a wide plastic tray (with about 15cm lip on it) lined with white paper --Fir0002 09:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, disturbing shadow, insufficient DOF. -- Lycaon 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Disturbing? I think the spider itself is disturbing enough...--Iriseyes 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: I seem to remember there being another shot of a similar spider without the shadows a while back. This one is much better. A shame about the blurring, but sadly that's unavoidable when taking such a shot. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

, although again this was quite close Raven4x4x 06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)