Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jumping spider courtship

Jumping spider courtship[edit]

Reason: I have dozens of jumping spider photos that are technically far better than this one, but none of them come close to being as valuable. This photo is not for illustrating a particular jumping spider, but to illustrate the section on jumping spider courtship dances in the article jumping spider. Obviously the sharpness is not comparable to most other featured macro shots. For shooting jumping spiders (which are quite tiny) I usually have to open up to f/8 or so to avoid diffraction softening. In this case, however, it was important to get the legs in the focus plane (as they are an important part of the display) so I stopped down to f/13. At full res the diffraction softening is obvious, but IMO the trade-off was worth it and I would shoot it at the same aperture if I did it again. The other flaw is that there are 21 blown pixels on the leg and 5 in the eyes where the specular highlights are. There are no totally blown areas, however, just pixels, and otherwise the levels and curves are pretty nice. Since this was shot hand-held on an overcast day, obviously a strong flash was required (not to mention the fact that it's dancing). The primary selling point for this images is obviously it's encyclopedic value. The description of jumping spider courtship behavior needed a good photo and this one fits the bill nicely. There are only a handful of similar photographs on the internet and none that are free license.
Articles this image appears in: Jumping spider#Reproduction
Creator: Kaldari

Support as nominator. You can also see the action from another angle. --Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose While I appreciate the exceptions you brought up, IMO this is better suited at VPC. Actually, with a little of effort in image editing, the image could have been improved with software if you would've used less aperture and more flash. Zoo Fari 04:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I forgot about VPC (as most people do). Perhaps you're right that it would be better suited there. Can you explain a bit more about the "less aperture more flash". I'm always interested in learning more about photography. Kaldari (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, I meant "More aperture more flash", I think. What lighting conditions did you take the pic in? Zoo Fari 04:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was quite overcast. I was under the impression that opening the aperture always reduces depth of field. Is there a way around that? Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - New ring flash? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ha, sharp eyes! Yep, finally upgraded to the Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Flash. It's a big improvement on the ring flash, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appreciate the difficulty, DOF is ok and so is sharpness. --Muhammad(talk) 11:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - great shot, but the front leg is either out of focus or in a motion blur. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The spider is only 1 cm long. To get the entire spider in focus, I would have had to have stopped the aperture down to f/16 or so which would have ruined the sharpness due to diffraction. I tried to choose the best trade-off between loosing sharpness and getting the spider in the focus plane. That said, if the front leg being out of focus is distracting to you, I suppose that is a valid objection. Kaldari (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support You'd never have got that leg sharp with just another stop down. Clearly a good decision to go as far as f13 as any loss of minute detail is wholly mitigated by gains in overall pictorial value. It's a good angle and a fine illustration, only weak supporting in recognition of the high bug bar. --mikaul^talk 22:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC) -edit- and I'm not a fan of those twin flash units... too many specular highs, very distracting...[reply]
Weak Support per above. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flipped image, inappropriately manipulated. In my opinion definately relevent in this case as someone examining - and say using it in a school paper - would be likely to refer to the "left" or "right" legs. Guest9999 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Striking oppose (image unflipped). Guest9999 (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that's an interesting oppose. Since jumping spiders are bilaterally symmetrical, I wouldn't think it would be an issue. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't notice that. You could always just flip it back and place a left in the image syntax. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unflipped. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Kaldari, do you have the exact original (no RAW though)? Or is it the first version you uploaded? Zoo Fari 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the RAW and an original higher-res JPEG. The version that was uploaded was downsampled, noise-reduced, and sharpened. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you by any chance be willing to upload it or email it to me? Just to take a look. I might be able to do some tweaks to the version open for voting, but I would like to see the work you've done so far first. Zoo Fari 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, just send me your email address. Kaldari (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended for editing. Could also close if preferred, and you can nominate the new version later, but I don't want to discourage work being done on an image by a hasty "no quorum" close. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit now done so I'm Unsuspending. Zoofari could you strike your previous vote please since you've now voted twice? Also renamed edit from Alt to Edit per conventions (an alt is a completely different image). Note: I'm just putting this back to the 'decision time' section - if you want to run it right from the top again, go ahead but I don't think it needs it. --jjron (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt see the thumb for changes. I'm not a wizard so I couldn't bring the leg into focus :-( Zoo Fari 05:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the effort, but I have to say I prefer the original. The alt is over-sharpened - the areas where the hairs overlap the background are quite noisey for example. Also, all of the white areas are blown in the alt, so there is actually less detail rather than more. As you said, it would take a wizard to fix it (without being able to focus-stack), so maybe it's just not good enough to feature. Kaldari (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Promoted File:Phidippus clarus courtship edit.jpg~~ --Pmlineditor Talk 14:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the edit promoted? Have you read the discussion? Kaldari (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read it. I believe there is sufficient consensus to promote this one. The majority of the votes are support and I see no reason not to promote. If you oppose this, please nominate for delisting. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one editor in favor of the edit (Zoofari) and two against it (myself and Jauerback), whereas the original version has four editors in favor (Muhammad, mikaul, Noodle snacks, and myself) and two opposed (Jauerback and Zoofari). Additionally, the problems with the edit were detailed in the discussion - over-sharpening and blown highlights - without response. How can that be viewed as consensus? Kaldari (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Can you please go for a delisting (or something else)? Pmlineditor  Talk 15:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why jump through extra hoops here? You made a clear mistake, just rectify it. No need to go through a delisting process here. --Dschwen 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. :( Pmlineditor  Talk 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turn that frown upside down! There is no shame here. Mistakes happen, fortunately most of them are easy to fix. --Dschwen 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no consensus. My apologies for this but this is the best I can make of this now. We were leaving it open to give the edit some time, but we have been pre-empted and I suppose must now make a decision. I would tend to encourage a renomination (or alternative decision here). --jjron (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that decision is correct. There really wasn't any kind of consensus. Kaldari (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. That's a generous attitude and quite a vote of confidence given that it meant your image went from being promoted in some form to not being promoted. That type of 'good sportsmanship' can be lacking here at times. --jjron (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]