File talk:Gasteracantha mammosa spiderlings next to their eggs capsule.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Your dislike of spiders is not a valid reason for opposing really is it. Mfield 01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Is that so? I don't have to give a reason, its appreciated but not required. When all else fails - remember.... all rules can be broken --ShakataGaNai Talk 01:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, then I'll just ignore the rule about being polite and call a troll a troll, if you're going to give a reason giving an idiotic one like Arachnophobia (fear of spiders) is just trolling probably because you want attention for posting stupid comments on the internet and the yahoo chat rooms for down for maintenance. I realize it's hypocritical btw replying to a troll to deride replying to a troll but at least I'm honest about being a hypocrite. Cat-five 03:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That was a long sentence. You made my point for me though, thanks. I wasn't "giving an idiotic" reason, but I wasn't being helpful either, No. A comment to the lines of "Could you please post commentary about the quality of the picture" would have made a much nicer statement than 'your reason is not valid'. But since you asked SO VERY NICELY I'll tell you: The background is too clutered, white spiders against some sort of white blob on the background makes it difficult to see. Also the DOF is too shallow for this as most of the spiders are out of focus. Oh - and I don't like spiders. ^_^ --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "white blob" is the egg capsule. May I please ask you, ShakataGaNai, if you calculated how many spiderlings are in focus? I mean it could help you to relax, or even better relaxation exercise is to calculate how many spiderlings are out of focus. BTW may I please point out that the images is not of spiders, but of spiderlings and they are cute as all babies are. Thank you.--Mbz1 04:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bah! A spider is a spider! No cutesy spiders! Just creatures of death and destruction!! </sarcasm> But seriously, I just think it makes too many layers. You have the front 'spiderlings' that are in focus, a group behind them out of focus and my favorite white blog in back (yes, I know it was the egg thing - but 'white blob' is more fun). --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, if you really do not like spiders as much as you say you do, the image should earn the more of your support the more spiderlings are out of focus. I mean in that situation the less you could see the better, isn't it? ;=) But seriously it is a very, very hard subject - too small, no good light and so on.Thank you.--Mbz1 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ShakataGaNai, I think you got the wrong impression from my original comment (It was me that made the original point, not Cat-five who you arguing with now). There was nothing rude about my comment, it was just an indirect way of saying "Could you please post commentary about the quality of the picture". It was slightly sarcastic rhetorical question that's all. Now I'll leave you guys to get back to your argument. Mfield 04:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one more discussion[edit]

  • If one could see the legs and marks at the backs of very,very, very small creatures, which are only 1-2 mm in size, I do not think that statement "Not nearly sharp enough" applies to the image. There's one more reason which proves that the image is good: Lycaon and Mfield supported it and I believe everybody here knows that these guys know what they are doing. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - With an aperture of 4.5 it is hardly possible to have anything on focus. A look at this FP (among other possible examples) will prove it is possible to do much better than this. Sorry, but I can't respect "authority arguments" of the type you are using. I use my own head and values the best I can, and don't care if A or B do not agree with me -- Alvesgaspar 17:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannot agree about the aperture. this FP in the making was taken with F2, but thank you fo comparing me to Richard! It really is flattering :=) BTW I have some mitigating circumstances.I hope you'd agree that it might be a litlle bit harder to take an image of few hundreds small insects than only of two small insects. Of course I am sure Richard and you would have taken much, much, much better image in the same situation.--Mbz1 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard's photos do not define the minimal FP passing bar (all of us would be out of the race if they did), but are the best examples on how difficult subjects should be handled. I could have shown mine too (this and this) but, of course, they are not as good. If I understand well you are giving the first steps in macrophotography. I'll tell you a secret: all I know about macro was learned here in the two last years. But for the learning to be effective maybe you'll have to start (as I did) to listen more and talk less. As I told you before, I won't hesitate to oppose your nominations whenever I believe they are not good enough. This way you will know that my supports are genuine... What about being a litle more selective with your nominations? Alvesgaspar 20:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I could have asked you the same questions, but I will not because I am not interested in the continuing discussion with you. With your permission I will continue to nominate the images, which IMO are interesting, unique, and valuabale. You know my take on it. To me it is better to have an image of something new (even with not so great quality) than to have great quality images of absolutely the same subjects because IMO it is encyclopedia and not an exibit of high quality images. IMO we're doing this for the readers and most of them cannot care less about quality. Thanks.--Mbz1 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that image was taken at F22, there was an error that is commented in the discussion. BUT I don't think your first image would have improved from much greater DOF, I mean to say that I don't think with objects that size and that distance apart at that magnification you could have got all of it in focus anyway. Certainly at F22 the other image is suffering from diffraction softening and on a crop sensor camera you are going to start seeing that around F11. My support was based on it being an interesting image in spite of the shallow DOF. I don't think having it all in focus would have improved it as an image for Commons purposes, only for enc value if this was en:WP:FP. I don't need to see every identical spiderling in a macro shot such as this. For me if anything the blur serves to emphasize how tiny they are. Mfield 18:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Gasteracantha_mammosa_spiderlings_next_to_their_eggs_capsule.jpg&oldid=11890570"