Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Aranha-de-prata (Argiope argentata) se alimenta, antero-dorsal recorte.jpg

File:A Aranha-de-prata (Argiope argentata) se alimenta, antero-dorsal recorte.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2014 at 16:03:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:A Aranha-de-prata (Argiope argentata) se alimenta, antero-dorsal recorte.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Aranha-de-prata (Argiope argentata) se alimenta, antero-dorsal recorte.jpg

•  Info Original Nomination. Created and uploaded by Lauro Sirgado - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose The disturbing background spoils it for me, putting the spider before dark and bright background in turns while looking at it. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lauro Sirgado: It's fixable? ArionEstar (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 Comment@ArionEstar: I like that. I respect the Kreuzschnabel opinion (Hi Kreuzschnabel), but I have my own. The choice of point of view was just to give the impression that the spider touched the riparian forest to an observer far from the picture in the original format. This species is well distributed (even in cities) and the photo was taken to show it in its wild habitat, remove the motif of picture and replace the background ruin the motivation of the photographer to choose the composition. Anyway add a background leave the unnatural picture, due to details of the spider would be an insane work, to stay so I took it as a good job. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 22:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

 CommentTo achieve that effect, the spider and forest should be nearly equally sharp. The unsharpness of the forest gives too much depth into the image to generate the intended deception. That idea just didn’t come to my mind. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment@Kreuzschnabel: Please take this (and the previous) for information only, I do not want to defend a position, just explained, the image would be in a frame a few steps away from the observer, the lure disappear on approach, revealing the motif. The background should be blurred in this case. Each composition(and person) requires a different way of looking, and yes(so even), I understand and respect your point of view. Ty -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 19:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose Not "FP enough" for me as I said earlier. (This is another Argiope taken by me which is also below the FP bar.) Jee 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. I appreciate the explanation by Lauro Sirgado, but I did not get the compositional idea when seeing the image, and it does not work for me. --Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Weak support I don't have problems with background, backwards, not a studio picture; but background with a bit of noise--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)