Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Jumping spider nov07.jpg

Jumping Spider

Reason: High quality image which IMO is also quite aesthetic in terms of colours and lighting.
Articles this image appears in: Ocrisiona
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator --Fir0002 06:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question How big is it? The article gives no size range. Mfield (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's approx 20mm in size --Fir0002 07:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose decent image, but I feel EV is low as the rear portion of the spider is out of focus. --Leivick (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thing is, and yes I've said this numerous times, due to physical limitations this is as good as is possible in terms of DOF (20mm just isn't going to happen). There's no way (apart from focus stacking which is not practical for wild non-sedated insects) of getting a better photo. --Fir0002 09:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there definitely are ways of getting a better photo. An overhead shot where the spider is more or less at one depth would be one that I can think of. Right now this is only a FP of half a spider. --Leivick (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider the overhead view but the downside there is that you lose one of the jumping spider's most important features - its eyes. --Fir0002 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also it would seem, based off this relatively recent nom, that even explicit "half an insect" shots do not fail on EV. Given that in this image you can quite clearly get an idea of what it's abdomen looks like I think this is still a very nice shot. And it would be a shame to see all spider shots regaled to a top down view... Just some thoughts --Fir0002 23:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support I really wish the back half was in focus. But I'm willing to overlook that because this shows a lot of detail up front. I don't think an overhead shot would be much of an improvement. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. DOF issues. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Depth of field is a serious problem. I don't agree with the prospect of yet another overhead shot of a spider, and I like the view of the spider in this image. I understand the physical limitations of taking a photo such as this, but the image loses significant EV due to a lack of focus. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 08:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK fair enough you consider the DOF a problem, but the rest of your comment seems a direct contradiction to it. 1. You like the front on view (I'm glad and agree that it makes an agreeable change from the conventional perspective) and 2. you recognise that it is physically impossible to improve on the DOF if this perspective is to be employed. Yet you still oppose this nom? --Fir0002 10:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite possible to do a focus stack in the field, even if you just put your camera in burst mode and slowly lean in (or out) to get the set of shots. You need decent software to put it together though. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No offence but have you tried? Unless you're shooting a beetle or a large spider then the insect is almost constantly in motion. Jumping spiders in particular are very active (especially their pedipalps) and this specimen was no exception. Also unless you were extremely careful with your leaning you're likely to end up with missing bits which are not nice and you will probably motion blur your shot to boot (not to mention issues with burst and flash recycle time!). I wouldn't go so far to say it's impossible, but it is very difficult indeed and not something to risk when the spider is likely to disappear at any second! :) --Fir0002 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yeah, you do need an inactive subject, Image:Unidentified_Caterpillar.jpg was a hand-held focus stack, the stitcher got a bit fooled by all the hair though. I wouldn't try a complete stack, just can be sparingly useful if you get 2-3 shots. I don't think motion blur would be an issue with a 1/8000th sec or whatever flash burst. I don't know what the recharge time on the MT-24EX is like either. I can shoot my 430ex practically indefinitely at 3fps and 1/16th though. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is a guy that says he regularly does them handheld. He has a website here and seems fairly prolific in various forums etc for macro photography. I believe he uses a beanpole for support. Doesn't mean it would have been practical here though. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah for sure that guy has plenty of nice shots but I still maintain that a successful focus stack would have been unlikely here. I only managed to get three or four other shots of him (with stuff in the way) before he disappeared and they were all obviously in different positions --Fir0002 10:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support DOF isn't ideal, but frankly I think the out of focus half is similar enough to the front that you can still tell what is going on. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Noodle snacks (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]