Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Habronattus clypeatus

Habronattus clypeatus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2011 at 07:03:10 (UTC)

Original - Adult male Habronattus jumping spider

Reason

This is an extremely small spider - approximately 4mm, and thus challenging to photograph. I was quite lucky to get 2 of the legs in the focus plane along with the face. At this magnification (~2:1) the focus plane is a small sliver. For the Alt image, I closed down the aperture slightly to get more of the body in focus, but sacrificed some of the sharpness in the process.

Articles in which this image appears

Habronattus

FP category for this image

Arachnids

Creator

Kaldari

Alt 1

• Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I don't see how you relate a smaller aperture to a less sharp image. The DOF is actually too shallow here for it to be a FP. Looking at the EXIF data it seems it could be improved on. Also with regards to EV you made an article in order to put one image in, and the other article is a list of non-pages, not really got a lott of EV. JFitch (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Have a read of Airy disk. For small apertures, stopping down does increase depth of field, but at the expense of overall image sharpness. Speaking from experience with such equipment I believe Kaldari has made a good aperture choice here. Some times you can do focus stacks and stuff, but that is often not possible and it shouldn't be our standard. Don't forget that depth of field becomes more problematic as you get smaller, this is probably around 10-15mm across the frame. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I will read through, however even if technically perfect I don't feel I can support with the lack of EV it has. JFitch (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually the frame is about 6–7 mm across, i.e. about the length of a grain of rice. Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. It is a pretty picture too. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support either. An image of a species with an article, possibly the only image available, is high enough EV for me. Image is fine, high resolution and sharp enough for my tastes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The only other image of this species on the internet is this one. Kaldari (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment DOF is quite narrow and in my experience, for smaller subjects, up to f/13 usually provided decent sharpness and DOF --Muhammad(talk) 16:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It depends significantly on the magnification (and the lens). At 5:1 magnification I can notice diffraction softening above f/4.5; At 2:1, above f/9; At 1:1, above f/11. Compare the sharpness with this similar image shot at f/11. That photo has much better DOF, but significantly less sharpness (and still only managed to get one of the front legs in focus). It's a difficult trade off at this magnification. Might require a focus stack to pass the muster here. Kaldari (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
    • (Hence why it is possible to buy f0.1 microscope objectives). JJ Harrison (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • In such a case then, wouldn't it be better to use a 1:1 lens and take a picture at that magnification? This is around 1/3th the size of the spider... --Muhammad(talk) 04:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Withdrawing nomination. I showed the photos to a jumping spider expert and he believes that this may be an H. clypeatus x H. dossenus hybrid. In other words, mostly useless for illustrating Wikipedia :( Kaldari (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd say it's time for that article to appear then. --Muhammad(talk) 08:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I showed the expert the rest of the photos I had and he now thinks the species is probably Habronattus dossenus rather than a hybrid, so at least there may be a use for the image yet. Kaldari (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)