Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.03.09.-14-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Braune Krabbenspinne-Weibchen.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:2014.03.09.-14-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Braune Krabbenspinne-Weibchen.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2016 at 16:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family_:_Thomisidae_.28Crab_spiders.29
Info Another composition of this spider. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Nice detail, but background is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment I'm was lying on the ground to take pictures of this small spider and this is what the background is. The natural environment where it walk and hide from enemies. I do not want to convince you to change your opinion. I respect it. But I have the feel it is a standard to say ... background is distracting ... . This cannot be valid for every picture in generally. It isn't in any way regarding to this picture and for me it is a big nonsense. Even if hundreds of people would say the same as you say. Thanks for your review. --Hockei (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Question - Would it be possible to take this kind of photograph and have the entire visible body of the spider be clear (not blurry)? Some of the legs are very blurry, even at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've used F11. This series of pictures are really macro shots and was taken at the beginning in 2014. For newer pictures normally I chose F13 and sometimes even more to get more depth of field. But, in this case it is exactly the right choice to get the best balance between sharpness an the desired blurred background. According to my understanding in FPC it is not necessary that all part of the spider have to be sharp. A decreasing sharpness in the back- and/or foreground can be an artistic part of the composition like in this picture for example.. --Hockei (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sure it can be, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Part of the decision that's being made in FP voting and discussion is whether a picture has "a 'wow factor'". That calls for a subjective determination, and I don't think you can argue that my basis for making that determination is unfair because you disagree with it. I appreciate your detailed response and your consistently diligent efforts to take pictures of small animals and plants, and I hope to support your next nomination, but I will respectfully Oppose featuring this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- My explanation was just an answer to your question. Not more. --Hockei (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sure it can be, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Part of the decision that's being made in FP voting and discussion is whether a picture has "a 'wow factor'". That calls for a subjective determination, and I don't think you can argue that my basis for making that determination is unfair because you disagree with it. I appreciate your detailed response and your consistently diligent efforts to take pictures of small animals and plants, and I hope to support your next nomination, but I will respectfully
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- strong oppose As you note, this is literally "another composition of this spider". We already have a featured picture taken 8 minutes later. Please choose your best photo for FPC out of a set you take. And this composition / arrangement is very confusing and the pose enlarges the DoF issues. -- Colin (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel & Colin. INeverCry 20:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
