Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Redback spider
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 00:54:30 (UTC)
- Reason
- An illustrative pose of a very important living Australian Spider (featuring its distinguishing red mark). The photo took quite some effort to obtain, because the subject is small and uncooperative (and dangerous), but I am very happy with the result in terms of quality and composition. An earlier FP of this species was rightly delisted in 2007 Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Redback_spider, but may serve as a comparison.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Redback spider
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arachnids
- Creator
- 99of9
- Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Technically speaking, it's quite noisy and not all that sharp when you zoom up all the way, but it looks nice enough at a 50% zoom (which I think still would meet the size requirements) and it's big on wow factor, and has great EV.126.109.231.71 (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
::Clerk note: Votes from IP addresses cannot be counted. Clegs (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- "are generally disregarded" ≠ "cannot be counted". Not that I expect you to count it, but I think you should quote the rule as it is, without making it stricter. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Very well, this is perfectly accurate: "Per resolved discussion on the talk page, votes from this IP are to be ignored." Clegs (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- It had nothing to do with the IP but whether the user was voting while logged in. That said the IP is getting tedious by voting when he is aware they are to be disregarded. The IP user should just make a comment as they will be welcome. In either case stop commenting on the votes to be disregarded and allow the closer to handle the tally. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Very well, this is perfectly accurate: "Per resolved discussion on the talk page, votes from this IP are to be ignored." Clegs (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- "are generally disregarded" ≠ "cannot be counted". Not that I expect you to count it, but I think you should quote the rule as it is, without making it stricter. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per noise. To the anom, the rules state that we judge based on full size, not an arbitrary zoom level. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Question Would you like me to upload an alt at the minimum required resolution of 531x1000? Thankfully as far as I can read the rules don't "state" anything of the sort, because if they did, that would encourage uploaders to do a bad thing (downsample). Rather, the criteria ask you to judge the technical standard (yes including noise). To do that fairly across different sized images, the best way is to compare them at equivalent sizes to one another (say, perhaps the 1000px, since some pics will come in at that size). I'm not saying you shouldn't look at the full-res, but the IP's argument is sound. --99of9 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- 50% is not an "arbitrary" zoom level, as it's above the minimum requirements. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Blurry and noisy. If reshot in focus with a better camera, it could be easily an FP. Clegs (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- There isn't a problem with the camera. We have hundreds of FPs with that model, including recently. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I think that the noise comes from a combination sharpening something that wasn't very sharp to begin with and correcting underexposure, but there is too much of it and not much detail there. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I imagine it is also due to shooting the spider at f/16. At high magnification, this aperture is going to give you significant diffraction softening, but the trade off is that you get the entire spider in focus (including the legs), which is otherwise impossible without focus stacking. Spiders are especially challenging to get past FPC. Either people complain that your image isn't sharp enough/high res enough or they complain that it isn't all in focus. Unless it's a relatively large spider, it's very difficult to do both. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you're both right. Next time I will ensure that I don't underexpose. The exposure was automatically chosen, which was no good for so much white paper and a black subject. But I think f/16 was the right choice for this, because spiders are very three dimensional (and the body-focus was accurate).--99of9 (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I imagine it is also due to shooting the spider at f/16. At high magnification, this aperture is going to give you significant diffraction softening, but the trade off is that you get the entire spider in focus (including the legs), which is otherwise impossible without focus stacking. Spiders are especially challenging to get past FPC. Either people complain that your image isn't sharp enough/high res enough or they complain that it isn't all in focus. Unless it's a relatively large spider, it's very difficult to do both. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)