447:(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)!! --
498:. 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
49:
59:
34:
296:. 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.)
456:
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
241:
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
436:
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
446:
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
197:
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
78:
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.
269:
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.
437:
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? -
389:
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.
73:
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
402:, 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?
154:
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.
224:
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 --
125:
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?
175:
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.--
545:
550:
427:
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. --
17:
540:
211:
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?
256:
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 :-) ~
242:
just this one (very good otherwise) picture. If you are interested in the topic, I posted my thoughts on Fir0002's talk page.
526:
514:
490:
461:
451:
441:
431:
418:
406:
394:
381:
365:
349:
336:
316:
300:
288:
274:
264:
246:
228:
215:
202:
187:
167:
142:
129:
113:
100:
161:
362:
346:
345:
I fail to see anything awfully wrong with the picture - opposing per the subject is a different matter.
179:
325:
156:
378:
403:
297:
261:
312:- As much as I'd like to keep these horrifying creatures away, excellent job as usual Fir. --
391:
285:
271:
243:
199:
75:
184:
176:
198:
version with a digitally added ruler. (NOTE: Added the sig in a second edit - I forgot)
480:
361:, illustrates the spider exquisitely. Allow me to add that you have an amazing camera.
534:
499:
374:
313:
212:
126:
448:
428:
415:
257:
225:
139:
110:
97:
83:
502:
spider pose with the head/thorax arched up (this is another article this would be
48:
458:
438:
523:
511:
58:
33:
507:
479:, higher enc value cos it displays the front of the spider better. --
87:
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
373:Ambivalent about adding a ruler or not.
57:
47:
32:
546:Featured picture nominations/July 2007
109:Ambivalent towards No. 1 with scale --
7:
551:Ended featured picture nominations
324:not exactly a beautiful picture.--
24:
496:Support, pref for No 1 (no scale)
305:oppose the addition of the scale
521:Promoted Image:Mouse spider.jpg
506:good for). And BTW spiders are
1:
310:Support either with a shudder
541:Featured picture nominations
477:Support Option 1 with scale
567:
414:The DOF is the problem. --
138:It's about 25mm in size --
527:03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
515:06:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
491:00:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
462:16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
452:07:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
442:07:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
432:08:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
419:08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
407:04:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
395:22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
382:20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
366:11:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
350:11:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
337:05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
317:05:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
301:00:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
289:18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
275:22:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
265:17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
247:23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
229:22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
216:18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
203:17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
188:16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
168:07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
143:07:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
130:05:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
114:05:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
101:04:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
70:
55:
45:
510:, not insects ;-). --
400:Support without scale
62:Female Mouse Spider,
61:
51:
37:Female Mouse Spider,
36:
53:Option 1 with scale
71:
64:Missulena bradleyi
56:
46:
39:Missulena bradleyi
359:Support version 1
558:
487:
486:
334:
331:
328:
166:
164:
159:
566:
565:
561:
560:
559:
557:
556:
555:
531:
530:
484:
482:
363:Chris Buttigieg
347:Chris Buttigieg
332:
329:
326:
162:
157:
155:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
564:
562:
554:
553:
548:
543:
533:
532:
518:
517:
493:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
422:
421:
409:
397:
384:
371:Support Either
368:
355:
354:
353:
352:
340:
339:
319:
307:
294:Support either
291:
279:
278:
277:
251:
250:
249:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
219:
218:
206:
205:
190:
170:
148:
147:
146:
145:
133:
132:
123:support either
119:
118:
117:
116:
104:
103:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
563:
552:
549:
547:
544:
542:
539:
538:
536:
529:
528:
525:
522:
516:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:
492:
489:
488:
478:
475:
474:
463:
460:
455:
454:
453:
450:
445:
444:
443:
440:
435:
434:
433:
430:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
417:
413:
410:
408:
405:
401:
398:
396:
393:
388:
387:Support Scale
385:
383:
380:
376:
372:
369:
367:
364:
360:
357:
356:
351:
348:
344:
343:
342:
341:
338:
335:
323:
320:
318:
315:
311:
308:
306:
302:
299:
295:
292:
290:
287:
283:
280:
276:
273:
268:
267:
266:
263:
259:
255:
252:
248:
245:
240:
239:
238:
237:
230:
227:
223:
222:
221:
220:
217:
214:
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
201:
196:
195:
191:
189:
186:
183:
182:
178:
174:
171:
169:
165:
160:
153:
150:
149:
144:
141:
137:
136:
135:
134:
131:
128:
124:
121:
120:
115:
112:
108:
107:
106:
105:
102:
99:
95:
94:Support No. 1
92:
91:
90:
89:
85:
80:
77:
69:
65:
60:
54:
50:
44:
40:
35:
29:
26:
19:
520:
519:
503:
495:
481:
476:
411:
399:
386:
370:
358:
321:
309:
304:
298:Spikebrennan
293:
284:Cool spider.
281:
253:
193:
192:
180:
172:
151:
122:
93:
84:Mouse Spider
81:
72:
68:Option No. 2
67:
63:
52:
43:Option No. 1
42:
38:
28:Mouse Spider
27:
500:mygalomorph
412:Weak Oppose
392:Zakolantern
286:Bewareofdog
272:Zakolantern
244:Zakolantern
200:Zakolantern
96:Self Nom --
82:Appears in
535:Categories
508:arachnids
303:(update)
282:Support 1
254:Support 1
173:Support 2
152:Support 1
457:reply. -
375:Cat-five
314:Iriseyes
213:Debivort
127:Debivort
483:snowolf
449:Fir0002
429:Fir0002
416:Mad Max
404:Stevage
258:Veledan
226:Fir0002
158:Jumping
140:Fir0002
111:Fir0002
98:Fir0002
76:flooded
504:really
459:Fcb981
439:Fcb981
322:oppose
194:Oppose
163:cheese
88:Spider
524:MER-C
512:jjron
185:oHelp
16:<
379:talk
262:Talk
177:Here
86:and
333:gle
330:rin
327:Sef
537::
485:D4
377:-
260:•
66:-
41:-
181:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
