Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Orb weaver by day
Orb Weaver Spider[edit]
Alternative Version: Image:Orb weaver spider day web02.jpg
I think this makes a great compliment to the shot by night of the underside of the orb weaver.
- Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose It isn't that great a photo. It is at an angle, which doesn't work with macro, as most of the spider is out of focus. Also, the spider is so common, there are better photos out there. There are also less common forms (unsure if they are species or just variation within the species), which can look really cool. I will upload some soon. --liquidGhoul 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Here are some of my spider photos. This is a very different pattern, and a pretty good photo if it wasn't for the glare. Here is one of another pattern, with the white stripe down the center. It is a pretty crappy photo, but you can see the diversity out there. This is a St. Andrew's Cross Spider, but you can see how much better it looks straight on than on an angle. --liquidGhoul 09:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm certainly aware that there are many variations, but I don't think finding obscure patterns make the picture any more encylopaedic (maybe even less so because they are not typical of the spider). There is a lot to be said for top down macro-photography such as in the example you show, but it makes the picture (to my mind) rather common and sterile. It may be that I was aiming for something a little too artistic, but I purposely avoided the "standard" top down view (particularly since I had already taken one of that view). --Fir0002 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your top view is heaps better than this one. This photo only has about 30% in focus, and it isn't a particularly interesting or encyclopaedic section. Also, you already have a FP of an orb spider which looks remarkably similar to this. Yes, it is very important for the article to include the most common form (although I have never seen this one, must be native to Vic), but for a FP, we are looking for stunning, and unfortunately, this one is not that stunning. Some of the other morphs are. --liquidGhoul 10:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm certainly aware that there are many variations, but I don't think finding obscure patterns make the picture any more encylopaedic (maybe even less so because they are not typical of the spider). There is a lot to be said for top down macro-photography such as in the example you show, but it makes the picture (to my mind) rather common and sterile. It may be that I was aiming for something a little too artistic, but I purposely avoided the "standard" top down view (particularly since I had already taken one of that view). --Fir0002 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Okay, I know this is going to sound crazy but I like seeing a spider's face (even though they always look the same), and in that photo one of the legs is covering a portion of its face up. I don't mind the artistic intentions at all, but that white blob in the background that looks like a truck kind of ruins the background for me. But other than that most of the spider seems to be in good-enough focus, so there's a plus. --Mad Max 09:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose as per Mad Max --NoahElhardt 14:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. as per Mad Max. A bit disappointing considering some of your other photography. -- GarrettRock 15:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)