# How To Take Identifiable Photos of Jumping Spiders



## Nicole C G

With summer here/almost here, jumping spiders are everywhere. And with the increase of Jumping spiders, the numbers of people seeking jumper identification increases, naturally. So here is a guide on how to take proper photos with the highest chance of being able to be identified.



Before we talk about photos though, there are other things just as important. Location is very important to include. Where you found it too. If you are able to measure it, or even get a rough idea of the size, include that too.

An example of an informative description would be:

“Hello! I was walking at the park when I saw this little jumping spider hoping on some sunny rocks. I was wondering if anyone knows what species it could be. It was about 5mm. It was found in Denton County, Texas (USA). “

As used in the example, city/county is best when it comes to location. Even within one state there can be species that live on one side of the state but not the other. So be as specific as you feel comfortable.


Now onto photos.

First, make sure your photos are clear/mostly clear. You want to be able to see the patterns and shape of the spider. Usually a phone camera is enough. If it’s a smaller spider, use a magnifying glass or macro lens. Make sure there is sufficient lighting to see the patterns properly.
Usually for identifying the species, we will need a photo of the top (dorsal), a photo of the side, and a photo of the face. Any other angles are appreciated. If you are wanting to identify the gender/age of the spider as well, a photo of the underside (ventral) is needed. It can occasionally help with identifying species too. When photographing the underside, take the picture with flash on. This can help because the light will reflect off of the epigynum if it’s an adult female.






-Great angles for ID.



-(different spider than the last one) flash on, reflecting on epigynum making it more visible, meaning it’s an adult female.

These are good places to start. And of course, sometimes less photos or more photos are required. For instance, with only one photo, I can identify this as being an adult male Naphrys pulex.




And you don’t need to have the greatest photos. These are identifiable too:









And if you see jumpers breeding, it’s simple to determine age and gender. The one on the top is always an adult male, and the one on the bottom is always an adult female.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3 | Helpful 5 | Love 1


----------



## Nicole C G

Examples of why different angles are needed
These photos would be welcome additions if there are other photos of different angles. However, if these are by themselves, they are undesirable.



-underside is hard to identify to species.



-dark, blurry, and only a view of the face. It’s hard to make out.



-underside+face. Still hard to identify, as it is blurry and dark.



-very bright, angle doesn’t show shape of the spider very well.



-view of the abdomen only makes it hard to visualize overall shape



-while the photo is good quality, it only shows the face and the rest is cast under shadows.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Helpful 2


----------



## LadyShia77

These are awesome points. Sadly, I only have a phone camera and it is often very temperamental lol. If I don't have the zoom and lighting just right, I usually don't get a very good pic. Some enclosures are better for pictures while others are not. The cups with the vented lids are hit and miss. I love the pics you posted, though, and am a bit envious that you were able to get such nice pics. What are the specs on the camera you used? If you don't mind my asking.

Reactions: Thanks 2


----------



## Nicole C G

LadyShia77 said:


> These are awesome points. Sadly, I only have a phone camera and it is often very temperamental lol. If I don't have the zoom and lighting just right, I usually don't get a very good pic. Some enclosures are better for pictures while others are not. The cups with the vented lids are hit and miss. I love the pics you posted, though, and am a bit envious that you were able to get such nice pics. What are the specs on the camera you used? If you don't mind my asking.


I’m not sure what the specs are (or what specs means )
I use an iPhone XR camera if that helps. In addition, I clip the APEXEL 12x/24x macro lens onto it, to get the close ups.

Reactions: Helpful 1


----------



## LadyShia77

Nicole C G said:


> I’m not sure what the specs are (or what specs means )
> I use an iPhone XR camera if that helps. In addition, I clip the APEXEL 12x/24x macro lens onto it, to get the close ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 418952


I guess specs as in the type of camera, what mega pixels the camera has, etc. I'm still new to this lol. I have a Samsung Galaxy A10e and thought the camera would be better than what it is. It has panorama and HD, but none of those help with getting good close pics.


----------



## Eagle555 Jumping spiders

Nicole C G said:


> With summer here/almost here, jumping spiders are everywhere. And with the increase of Jumping spiders, the numbers of people seeking jumper identification increases, naturally. So here is a guide on how to take proper photos with the highest chance of being able to be identified.
> 
> 
> 
> Before we talk about photos though, there are other things just as important. Location is very important to include. Where you found it too. If you are able to measure it, or even get a rough idea of the size, include that too.
> 
> An example of an informative description would be:
> 
> “Hello! I was walking at the park when I saw this little jumping spider hoping on some sunny rocks. I was wondering if anyone knows what species it could be. It was about 5mm. It was found in Denton County, Texas (USA). “
> 
> As used in the example, city/county is best when it comes to location. Even within one state there can be species that live on one side of the state but not the other. So be as specific as you feel comfortable.
> 
> 
> Now onto photos.
> 
> First, make sure your photos are clear/mostly clear. You want to be able to see the patterns and shape of the spider. Usually a phone camera is enough. If it’s a smaller spider, use a magnifying glass or macro lens. Make sure there is sufficient lighting to see the patterns properly.
> Usually for identifying the species, we will need a photo of the top (dorsal), a photo of the side, and a photo of the face. Any other angles are appreciated. If you are wanting to identify the gender/age of the spider as well, a photo of the underside (ventral) is needed. It can occasionally help with identifying species too. When photographing the underside, take the picture with flash on. This can help because the light will reflect off of the epigynum if it’s an adult female.
> 
> View attachment 418934
> View attachment 418935
> View attachment 418936
> View attachment 418937
> 
> -Great angles for ID.
> 
> View attachment 418938
> 
> -(different spider than the last one) flash on, reflecting on epigynum making it more visible, meaning it’s an adult female.
> 
> These are good places to start. And of course, sometimes less photos or more photos are required. For instance, with only one photo, I can identify this as being an adult male Naphrys pulex.
> View attachment 418944
> 
> 
> 
> And you don’t need to have the greatest photos. These are identifiable too:
> View attachment 418940
> View attachment 418941
> View attachment 418939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you see jumpers breeding, it’s simple to determine age and gender. The one on the top is always an adult male, and the one on the bottom is always an adult female.
> View attachment 418942


 I suck at photography on my iPod  she’s hiding but I did post that pic in my forum so tell me if you need more I will take some when she gets out. Btw is it ok to put a clip on reading light on top of the cage for light?? ( white light )


----------



## Nicole C G

Eagle555 Jumping spiders said:


> I suck at photography on my iPod  she’s hiding but I did post that pic in my forum so tell me if you need more I will take some when she gets out. Btw is it ok to put a clip on reading light on top of the cage for light?? ( white light )


I use a reading lamp for my jumpers too.

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## viper69

Nicole C G said:


> With summer here/almost here, jumping spiders are everywhere. And with the increase of Jumping spiders, the numbers of people seeking jumper identification increases, naturally. So here is a guide on how to take proper photos with the highest chance of being able to be identified.
> 
> 
> 
> Before we talk about photos though, there are other things just as important. Location is very important to include. Where you found it too. If you are able to measure it, or even get a rough idea of the size, include that too.
> 
> An example of an informative description would be:
> 
> “Hello! I was walking at the park when I saw this little jumping spider hoping on some sunny rocks. I was wondering if anyone knows what species it could be. It was about 5mm. It was found in Denton County, Texas (USA). “
> 
> As used in the example, city/county is best when it comes to location. Even within one state there can be species that live on one side of the state but not the other. So be as specific as you feel comfortable.
> 
> 
> Now onto photos.
> 
> First, make sure your photos are clear/mostly clear. You want to be able to see the patterns and shape of the spider. Usually a phone camera is enough. If it’s a smaller spider, use a magnifying glass or macro lens. Make sure there is sufficient lighting to see the patterns properly.
> Usually for identifying the species, we will need a photo of the top (dorsal), a photo of the side, and a photo of the face. Any other angles are appreciated. If you are wanting to identify the gender/age of the spider as well, a photo of the underside (ventral) is needed. It can occasionally help with identifying species too. When photographing the underside, take the picture with flash on. This can help because the light will reflect off of the epigynum if it’s an adult female.
> 
> View attachment 418934
> View attachment 418935
> View attachment 418936
> View attachment 418937
> 
> -Great angles for ID.
> 
> View attachment 418938
> 
> -(different spider than the last one) flash on, reflecting on epigynum making it more visible, meaning it’s an adult female.
> 
> These are good places to start. And of course, sometimes less photos or more photos are required. For instance, with only one photo, I can identify this as being an adult male Naphrys pulex.
> View attachment 418944
> 
> 
> 
> And you don’t need to have the greatest photos. These are identifiable too:
> View attachment 418940
> View attachment 418941
> View attachment 418939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you see jumpers breeding, it’s simple to determine age and gender. The one on the top is always an adult male, and the one on the bottom is always an adult female.
> View attachment 418942


3rd one down— what gear did you use? It’s your clearest one ever! You’ve made huge gains since you first started!!

Reactions: Thanks 1 | Agree 2


----------



## Nicole C G

viper69 said:


> 3rd one down— what gear did you use? It’s your clearest one ever! You’ve made huge gains since you first started!!


Thank you! All I use is my phone (iPhone XR) and a 12x macro clip on lens. The sun was in the right place, the jumper posed good, and I held my phone steady. I actually took the photos of that one last November.  Still some of my favorite shots.

Reactions: Like 1 | Thanks 1


----------



## regalpaws

I've been wanting to get into macro photography/videography. I was looking at the Apexel 100mm macro lens as well. The 12x24 on amazon says that it is only used for close up pics (which both are lol) but it is best used 0.3 inches away from subject, while the 100mm is 0.91 inches away from subject. Curious of any ideas and opinions on the two?


----------



## Nicole C G

regalpaws said:


> I've been wanting to get into macro photography/videography. I was looking at the Apexel 100mm macro lens as well. The 12x24 on amazon says that it is only used for close up pics (which both are lol) but it is best used 0.3 inches away from subject, while the 100mm is 0.91 inches away from subject. Curious of any ideas and opinions on the two?


I have used both of the lenses and they are both good! The 100mm one has more in focus, and you don’t have to go as close, but some detail is lost (I think that lens is10x)
You have to go closer to the spider with the 12x/24x one, and less is in focus, but you get more detail. Here is a comparison:



-the “100mm” one



-the 12x/24x one (using 12x)




-left is 12x/24x one, right is 100mm one

Reactions: Like 2 | Thanks 1


----------



## regalpaws

Nicole C G said:


> I have used both of the lenses and they are both good! The 100mm one has more in focus, and you don’t have to go as close, but some detail is lost (I think that lens is10x)
> You have to go closer to the spider with the 12x/24x one, and less is in focus, but you get more detail. Here is a comparison:
> 
> View attachment 418974
> 
> -the “100mm” one
> 
> View attachment 418975
> 
> -the 12x/24x one (using 12x)
> View attachment 418976
> 
> View attachment 418977
> 
> -left is 12x/24x one, right is 100mm one


Thanks so much!! I think I know which one to get now


----------



## Nicole C G

regalpaws said:


> Thanks so much!! I think I know which one to get now


Now I’m curious.. which one?..


----------



## regalpaws

HAHA sorry, the 12x24  the difference in detail is amazing


Nicole C G said:


> Now I’m curious.. which one?..

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## Nicole C G

regalpaws said:


> HAHA sorry, the 12x24  the difference in detail is amazing


Just a note, it comes with two lenses, the one with the uh lampshade looking thing, and one without. When screwed together they make 24x zoom, which I only use under controlled condition, eg indoors. Because it is very hard to use, and I rarely need it. Only for super tiny things.
Like this super tiny Synageles sp.


-one lens only (12x)



-both lenses (24x) it gets pretty blurry

AND when they arrive, the lenses may be screwed together super tight. I used pliers with a cloth in the mouth of it to keep it from scratching, they unscrewed pretty easy that way.

AND AND when only using one lens, use the one without the lampshade thing. It’s the better one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## regalpaws

T


Nicole C G said:


> Just a note, it comes with two lenses, the one with the uh lampshade looking thing, and one without. When screwed together they make 24x zoom, which I only use under controlled condition, eg indoors. Because it is very hard to use, and I rarely need it. Only for super tiny things.
> Like this super tiny Synageles sp.
> View attachment 418981
> 
> -one lens only (12x)
> 
> View attachment 418982
> 
> -both lenses (24x) it gets pretty blurry
> 
> AND when they arrive, the lenses may be screwed together super tight. I used pliers with a cloth in the mouth of it to keep it from scratching, they unscrewed pretty easy that way.
> 
> AND AND when only using one lens, use the one without the lampshade thing. It’s the better one.


Thanks for the tips!! I cant wait to start experimenting with it. My phone has a decent camera with some submission lol I've been having fun with it but I wanna get into this more. Do you have any issues with the clip itself? The camera on my phone is center faced and I have a somewhat bulky case


----------



## Nicole C G

regalpaws said:


> T
> 
> Thanks for the tips!! I cant wait to start experimenting with it. My phone has a decent camera with some submission lol I've been having fun with it but I wanna get into this more. Do you have any issues with the clip itself? The camera on my phone is center faced and I have a somewhat bulky case


Never had any issues with the clip. I remove my case whenever I use the lens because I have a silicone case. So I’ve never tried with a case on. I imagine the photos wouldn’t look too good with a case on. I have a corner lens, but have tried it on phones with a center camera and aside from not being able to see the screen a little bit, I didn’t have any problems. I got used to it quickly.

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## The Snark

A tip a pro photographer told me. Unless you are going for the $$$ lens and so on, all the basic macro lenses have a very poor depth of field. That is, a very precise distance from lens to subject, or part of the subject. The rest will be blurry. So when you focus on a spider, choose what part of the spider you want in focus. Thus as in @Nicole C G pics here most of a part of the spider is in focus but her focal distance is tiny, give or take around 1/4th inch between sharp and clear and blurred. So practice and patience is definitely in order.

(So there is no way a klutz like me can ever take a decent macro shot without dumb luck and maybe a little divine intervention)

Reactions: Agree 1 | Informative 1 | Useful 1


----------



## SkittlesTheJumpingSpider

Thank you so much for this post! I just caught a new jumping spider (I'm debating if I should keep him or not,) and I'm planning on asking for an ID, so this will help a lot! Thanks again! 

By the way, your photos are *AMAZING*! I also love your knowledge on all of the species!

Reactions: Like 1 | Thanks 1


----------



## Nicole C G

The Snark said:


> A tip a pro photographer told me. Unless you are going for the $$$ lens and so on, all the basic macro lenses have a very poor depth of field. That is, a very precise distance from lens to subject, or part of the subject. The rest will be blurry. So when you focus on a spider, choose what part of the spider you want in focus. Thus as in @Nicole C G pics here most of a part of the spider is in focus but her focal distance is tiny, give or take around 1/4th inch between sharp and clear and blurred. So practice and patience is definitely in order.


I agree 100%. Over time you learn the best angles for each species. To get the most valuable parts in focus.


----------



## The Snark

Nicole C G said:


> I agree 100%. Over time you learn the best angles for each species. To get the most valuable parts in focus.


PING! Light bulb! In focus. And angle. And lighting. When I helped a pro photographer doing a major catalogue on a deadline. She had 4 cameras around her neck and the main camera on a tripod with tape on the floor where the models were to stand. My job was loading film and moving lights around while she was all over the place taking hundreds of shots from various angles. With three models being paid from when they left the agency costing a small fortune she didn't have the opportunity to get those perfectly framed and focused shots every time! Thus the reason she took several thousand pics. The same as you getting the correct part of the spider. The clothing in sharp focus with color, lighting, contrast, angle and distance having to be complimentary. That never fully sank into my mind until you mentioned it. And she had the extra difficulty that the models faces always had to be in focus along with whatever they were wearing.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Jonathan6303

I don’t know if this would go here but to help identify a lot of common sp. or at least give a genus. I would recommend everyone purchase
Common Spiders of North America by Richard  A. Bradley

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dragonblade71

The Snark said:


> all the basic macro lenses have a very poor depth of field. That is, a very precise distance from lens to subject, or part of the subject. The rest will be blurry. So when you focus on a spider, choose what part of the spider you want in focus.


Ive never heard of depth of field being described as "poor" before. Generally, we have shallow or large depth of field or somewhere in between those two extremes. When photographing people or animals, the usual advice is to focus on the eyes. However, when it comes to spiders, that's a bit tricky because they have so many eyes. I would probably focus on the two largest eyes because they kind of resemble the two eyes that people and most animals have. That's one thing that we can relate to. And if the jumping spider happens to be at an angle, I would recommend focusing on the closest of those two big eyes.


----------



## The Snark

dragonblade71 said:


> Ive never heard of depth of field being described as "poor" before.


I'm by no means a savvy photographer here. That was the term the photographer used when he was trying to explain things to me. As I understand it, both shallow or deep and how large perimeter wise. He used a microscope as an example in his explanations, with both distance and the subject being centered in the focal sweet spot.  He used shooting the cue ball in snooker as an example. With a large precision ground lens the cue ball is out in the middle of the table with the entire sphere open to be hit by the cue. A large workable area. The cheap lenses, the ball is against a cushion with only a fraction of the sphere usable -visible. So the non precision macro lens has a much smaller workable area. Thus the difficulty getting precise focus. Instead of a full circle depth of field you get a small half or quarter moon moon shape.
This make sense? If you can explain it better my photography challenged brain would be happy to hear it!
The part that made the most sense to me was macro lenses are large for a reason. The larger the area the easier it is to make a precision grinding of the lens. This makes sense to my machinist brain. We are talking fractions of a micron with parallelism,  arc, specifying the function equal to f(x), (setting of the a and b points. 1. f x = sin x. 2. a = − 1. 8. 3. b = 5. 2 5. 4.), concentricity and exact repeatability from lens to lens. The cheaper lense manufacturers aren't about to invest in a $100,000 grinding machine that requires an expert technician to adjust and correct after a given number of lenses. And of course, cell phone camera lenses aren't ground at all. Attaching a macro lens to them helps but they aren't likely to be giving the lens the full circle of workable area.


A good example would be the pictures by @Nicole C G .  https://arachnoboards.com/threads/temporary-guest.355162/
If you measure the focal area in her pictures the circle of the focal zone is flattened at the top but the lower area is a full circle. So she is getting about a 3/4 moon focal area. She could check this by taking a picture of a black and white grid at a 90 degree angle then various angles from all quarters.


----------



## dragonblade71

The Snark said:


> He used shooting the cue ball in snooker as an example. With a large precision ground lens the cue ball is out in the middle of the table with the entire sphere open to be hit by the cue. A large workable area. The cheap lenses, the ball is against a cushion with only a fraction of the sphere usable -visible. So the non precision macro lens has a much smaller workable area. Thus the difficulty getting precise focus. Instead of a full circle depth of field you get a small half or quarter moon moon shape.


Regardless if you're using a cheap or expensive lens, the rules for depth of field should remain the same. How much or how little depth of field we get is dictated by the aperture, lens focal length and subject to camera distance. Assuming that we're comparing two 50mm macro lenses at the same aperture, the only other variable is the camera to subject distance. If we're comparing a cheap lens and an expensive lens, the amount of depth of field we get should be the same if we're using the same camera to subject distance (whether that be mm or cm etc.) Remember that the plane of focus that intersects our subject is like a thin vertical wall. This 'wall' is parallel to the focal plane in our camera (where the film or sensor sits) - unless we're using the Scheimpflug principle in a view camera or tilt shift lens but that's a discussion for another day. When the depth of field is increased, that 'wall' gets significantly thicker. I'm not sure about these circles you're referring to. Are you talking about circles of confusion?

And I would say that getting precise focus comes down to the particular lens when using (a dampened focusing ring found on many old manual lenses really helps here) and the viewing system and any focusing aids that we have at our disposal (eg split image rangefinder, microprism, digitally zooming into the picture.) Generally, focusing is easier when the depth of field is shallow but I admit that sometimes even then, my eyes might struggle a bit once in a while.

Reactions: Helpful 1


----------



## The Snark

@dragonblade71 I've figured out what the photographer was referring to. The cheaper lenses are not precision convex. Thus the focus area is ovate and the center of the focal distance won't be precisely predictable. He also went into lens astigmatism and lost me.


----------



## Ashtralana

My phone isn't the best at taking pictures so I will send what I have. Trying to figure out if this is a male or female jumping spider. Also what kind of jumping spider is it?


----------



## Nicole C G

Ashtralana said:


> My phone isn't the best at taking pictures so I will send what I have. Trying to figure out if this is a male or female jumping spider. Also what kind of jumping spider is it?


Looks like a female Habronattus carolinensis. (But Habronattus females can be tricky.) Photo of underside is needed if you’re wanting to confirm maturity.

Reactions: Like 1 | Helpful 1


----------



## Ashtralana

Nicole C G said:


> Looks like a female Habronattus carolinensis. (But Habronattus females can be tricky.) Photo of underside is needed if you’re wanting to confirm maturity.


I have a pic of the underside but it's blurry. She mostly stays on the twig or at top so it's hard to get a pic of her underside.


----------



## Nicole C G

Ashtralana said:


> I have a pic of the underside but it's blurry. She mostly stays on the twig or at top so it's hard to get a pic of her underside.


From what I can tell it’s an adult female.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ashtralana

Nicole C G said:


> From what I can tell it’s an adult female.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 420351


Thank You



Nicole C G said:


> From what I can tell it’s an adult female.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 420351





Nicole C G said:


> Looks like a female Habronattus carolinensis. (But Habronattus females can be tricky.) Photo of underside is needed if you’re wanting to confirm maturity.


I have a better picture of Camo underside.


----------



## Nicole C G

Just want to add that I would prefer this not become a picture thread, rather a discussion about identifiable photos and macro photography of jumpers in general. It’s okay to post photos you want identified too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

