Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eriophora transmarina in web at night.jpg
File:Eriophora transmarina in web at night.jpg, not featured edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 03:30:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Info Australian garden orb weaver at night. Perhaps I should have opted for a macro lens, but I don't own one, and I think this shot shows more context by including the web (this is a particularly neat example of their webs too). Combination of flash and LED torch only just gave me enough lighting at f/5.6, so I'm quite happy with the result.- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)- Support Good work given the circumstances and equipment. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic! --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support per Daniel's remarks. Obvious educational value, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't think you really needed a macro lens for this shot as the distance to subject seems good enough for this sort of composition. What I would say is that although this is clearly a difficult spider/web to photograph given the web only exists at night, the lighting does look extremely harsh and probably a bit overexposed. I prefer this image's lighting. Diliff (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Diliff: Thanks for the comment. I have a RAW file for this one, and you were right that there was some clipping on the spider on that particular export. I've reprocessed the image now. (This specimen is a lot less yellow than the one you linked; they vary widely in colour. But as you say, the lighting is harsh.) -- Thennicke (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose disappointed, I look the thumb, and I thought that it would be a good one, and than I opened, :/, not sharp, no details... For educational purpose, the one pointed by David is better. -- RTA 12:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Owain Knight (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Owain Knight: Could you please explain why you oppose? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Per Diliff, The second image is much better - Owain Knight (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
