Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mouse spider.jpg

Mouse Spider[edit]

Now normally I'm a real stickler for chronological order when uploading photos (I'm currently at Jan 2007), but was really proud of this shot! Now when I first found her floating in a puddle while walking around our somewhat flooded property I thought with fangs like that it must be a funnel web. So camera shake was a bigger problem than usual when photographing this deadly insect! But it's a female mouse spider (still deadly), rarely seen outside of her burrow, forced up into the open by the floods.

Appears in Mouse Spider and Spider

Support No. 1 Self Nom --Fir0002 04:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent towards No. 1 with scale --Fir0002 05:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support either focus is better in 2, but pose is better in one. I do have one problem with some of these studio shots though - there is no sense of scale. How large is this spider? Debivort 05:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's about 25mm in size --Fir0002 07:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1 Scary hairy spiders! Someone smash them quick!!! Heheheh Anyways, I like how 1 shows the fangs. Slightly out of focus, but nothing major for a microshot in my opinion. Encyclopedic pic. Jumping cheese 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 It looks to me like there is more area in focus, and the head isn't obscured by the mandible (I think that's what that is). Unfortunately, you can't see the fangs.--Here T oHelp 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I agree with Debivort's comment but not his conclusion - a sense of scale is necessary. I don't know if there should be a quarter or a tennis ball next to the spider; that's how hard it is to gauge. That said, they're really cool pictures which I would support otherwise. And I might support a version with a digitally added ruler. (NOTE: Added the sig in a second edit - I forgot) Zakolantern 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great idea - what do you think Fir, add a (maybe 2mm) scale bar, and annotate it with some of your smooth Photoshop fonting? Debivort 18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm OK, I could have a shot at that - it'd spoil my beautiful white bg tho! Other problem is perspective, it won't be a problem in Option 2, but Option 1 may pose a problem --Fir0002 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think the perspective would not be that big a deal because you do not need to have that fine a level of granularity on the scale, so it does not have to really match the perspective of the image. However, you could also just modify the caption as I said below. Finally, this issue is broader than just this one (very good otherwise) picture. If you are interested in the topic, I posted my thoughts on Fir0002's talk page. Zakolantern 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 The size is given in both the image page caption and the article, so I don't think the lack of scale as a problem. Hideous spider :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The size is not in the caption as it appears on this page. I really like Debivort's suggestion - if it is a ~25 mm spider, putting a 2 mm ruler in one of the white corners would look good. I might support with just a caption modification that indicates size. Zakolantern 22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 Cool spider.Bewareofdog 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Good photos. I don't think it's necessary to include a scale-- that's what the image file description, the caption and the article are for. Parts of both spiders are out of focus-- is this inevitable with microphotography? (as I've mentioned in FPC before, I really don't know anything about photography.) Spikebrennan 00:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC) (update) oppose the addition of the scale[reply]
Support either with a shudder - As much as I'd like to keep these horrifying creatures away, excellent job as usual Fir. --Iriseyes 05:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose not exactly a beautiful picture.--Sefringle^Talk 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see anything awfully wrong with the picture - opposing per the subject is a different matter. Chris Buttigieg 11:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support version 1, illustrates the spider exquisitely. Allow me to add that you have an amazing camera. Chris Buttigieg 11:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either Ambivalent about adding a ruler or not. Cat-five - talk 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scale While not the way I personally would have added a scale to that picture, the craftsmanship and clarity of it is great. I think it adds to the enc value and should be the picture chosen. Thanks for trying the change, Fir0002. Zakolantern 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support without scale, preference for No. 2. Though I question the lack of background - it's a bit weird having a sand-covered spider on a pure white background - where did the sand come from? Wouldn't showing it on a natural surface be better? Stevage 04:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The DOF is the problem. --Mad Max 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shot at f/11 - max DOF w/o loss of sharpness/detail due to diffraction of light. Focus bracket on such a subject would be impossible without killing it. --Fir0002 08:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fir, did you really need all 150mm of your dedicated macro? Its not as if you need 1:1 size repro with this big a spider. Taking a shorter lens would have given substantially greater DOF. that or spacing out the distance with any lens would have helped. I'm just curious if there are any particular reasons you chose the set up you did, I'm not in anyway saying those are mistakes. given your achivements with bug macros I'm just happy to get a few tips. oh, one more thing briefly, how many strobes do you use and are they slaved or synced? -Fcb981 07:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the questions Fcb, I'll gladly answer. First you do actually need pretty close to 1:1 macro to fill a frame at this size - I could have used something like my Tamron and cropped, but this would mean that I wouldn't have a high res image and the sharpness would be significantly degraded (both because I'd be using a lens which isn't that sharp at min focus distant and because photos are never perfectly sharp at 100% and you gain sharpness by downsampling). Second (and equally important) reason is that I felt much more comfortable at a safer distance from this spider, and the spider would have felt less threatened by me as I wasn't so close. Not sure what you mean by "spacing out the distance with any lens". Single shoe mounted flash and reasonable sunlight was all I used - I wish I had a strobe(s)!! --Fir0002 07:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

huh, I see what you mean not wanting to get to cozy with your hairy friend up there. and by spacing out I just meant increase the distance to the subject, but that would mean more cropping. I am impressed that you manage to get good white balance on the bg with sunlight and flash ligh. Thanks for the reply. -Fcb981 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option 1 with scale, higher enc value cos it displays the front of the spider better. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pref for No 1 (no scale). Another fantastic photo from the frightening Fir menagerie. I like the concept of the scale, but by adding it afterwards we get the perspective problem that Fir0002 suggested; as he said it's fine if you do it horizontally, like if done in No 2, but not where it's going 'back' into the image, but where the gradations stay constant. As mentioned, the size of the beast could (and should) just be put into the caption. No 1 is better than No 2 as it shows the classic mygalomorph spider pose with the head/thorax arched up (this is another article this would be really good for). And BTW spiders are arachnids, not insects ;-). --jjron 06:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mouse spider.jpg MER-C 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]