Support Although the other image has more pixels, this image is actually sharper and shows more detail. Plus it doesn't have the spider floating in space. Kaldari (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) The challengers do not take part in the vote. The binomal must be in italic.
2) The image is made in the laboratory on an animal living on a gray support. There is no psot treatment and clipping. The image is much better.
@Ikan Kekek: Did you look at both images at full resolution? This image is sharper and shows more detail. For example, you can clearly see the posterior median eye in this image (the small eye between the two larger eyes), while it's lost in a muddled mess in the other image (making it look like the spider has 6 eyes instead of 8). Also the other image seems to suffer from some botched focus stacking. Notice the dark black band above the eyes in the other image. That band isn't in the other two pictures and doesn't reflect how this spider looks in real life. The area above the eyes should be bright orange, not black. Something clearly went wrong in the post-processing there. Since the other image isn't even an accurate depiction of the spider, I don't see how it can be the most valuable. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On VIC, we're supposed to judge photos only at review size, not at full size. That said, though it's not relevant, I did look at both photos at full size and don't agree with your appraisal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: What do you not agree with about it? The other image is not an accurate depiction of the species and should not be used. Isn't that the crux of the VI criteria? Take a look at the other two current VI images of this species and you should be able to see the problem with the coloration. The black band above the eyes (which is clearly visible at any size) is an artifact of post-processing and does not occur in nature. Compare with any other images of the male in the category (or elsewhere on the internet). Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on the spider, but the other photo is overall clearer at review size. It's easier to see and distinguish every part. How are you sure the band isn't simply part of a different variety of this spider? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm no spider expert either Ikan Kekek, but looking at other images on the web, there are specimens with a black forhead identified as females. We are certainly not comparing like with like. It is either male/female; immature/mature or a different species/subpsecies. Over to Kaldari and ArchaeodontosaurusCharles (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not ‘’botch’’ my focus stacking when I do;I often do and above all I always signaled in caption. These points are easy to verify. The black eyebrow specimen is not often encountered but it is not enough to make it a variety. I do not often do spiders because it is very difficult to make the difference between the sexes (it is often necessary to dissect) and the different juvenile forms. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: There is no question that these are both adult males due to the coloration of the third legs, which is used to signal to females (see File:Saitis barbipes signaling.jpg). I have a hard time believing that this is an unknown variety or subspecies. The more likely explanation is that this is the same spider as Archaeodontosaurus's other two photos (they were all uploaded on the same day), but that the discoloration was introduced during post-processing, for example by selecting the face and boosting contrast. Despite Archaeodontosaurus's claim that there was "no post-treatment", there clearly was unless spiders somehow don't cast shadows. Regardless, this photo does not show how this species normally looks in real life, so I don't see how it could be the most valuable. Kaldari (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't add any more, but you should know that Archaeodontosaurus and his expert colleagues have a history of knowing what they are talking about! So it's very unlikely to be a post-processing error as you suggest, and I'd drop that argument if I was you... Charles (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this series there is not one but three individuals differing, the third and the one who has served for the ventral side, which is difficult to do outside a laboratory. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
