Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fossil shrimp.jpg

File:Fossil shrimp.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2010 at 03:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Fossil shrimp.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fossil shrimp.jpg

•  Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm guessing you made an error on the cutouts on the bottom side? --99of9 (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• I guess, I know what are you talking about, but do you believe it is very important?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not even sure if I like the starry cutout on the top, but I definitely don't like the pixellation-like cutout on the bottom left. It seems that if you're going to be artsy and go out of your way to make something non-rectangular, it's worth making sure it's very aesthetically appealing. But this should be easy to fix, right?? --99of9 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I've never seen a fossil plate with such an outline. Why cut off in this way, why not the natural outline? --Llez (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that this image is a panorama. For me it was the only way to take such high resolution image of the rather long shrimp, but of course it was a crazy idea to take panorama using close-up settings. If you look at the edges, you will see they do not look good at all Isome part in focus, some parts out of focus). Of course, I could have fixed them manually, but it is very time consuming job. So I decided that the shrimp - the most important part of the rock is to be shown good, and cut my panorama as I did. I agree it looks strange. I did left a natural edges in the front and in the back parts of the rock. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment upper left part is perfect and sharp, lower bottom is sharpless. Did You use same settings ? --Mile (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The images for the panorama were taken with point-and-shoot camera, with the same settings. The rock itself is sharper in some places than it is in others. I uploaded a new version over an old one. I hope it is better now. BTW thanks for the comments, everybody. I am glad you found the image interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support The outline may look strange but it emphasizes the fossile remainings of the shrimps. This remembers me to some panoramas constructed from shots of distant planets or moons (example) and it helps to focus on a particular feature. Just compare it with the first low-resolution upload to see the difference. Overall, I found it stunning and would just want to know where it was photographed or in which collection it is to be found. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Horrible cut! This is Pseudoastacus from the Cenomanian to Mekel Lebanon. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for ID! It already worth the nomination. Do you see any other problems, but the cut?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I know these fossils Lebanese, and this one is very good. You do not do him homage. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked, if I fix the cut, would it be OK, or there are other problems you see in the shrimp itself? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded File:Fossil shrimp cropped.jpg as a demonstration of how I'd like to see this image fixed, and trimmed down to a less unmanageable size. With the original images I'm sure you can do better, and you're welcome to usurp this filename for any similar crop. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! I uploaded a bran new version of the complete rock. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support now with the small fish, which adds so much. Completely different perspective now. Jonathunder (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Especially now that it shows more than one organism, it should be renamed from "Fossil shrimp" to something else. Jonathunder (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose Beautiful piece. There is no problem of presentation.
  
• For an image FIP in paleontology, it is necessary: The genus name to a minimum and if possible the name of the species, stage specific as possible, the deposit: Lebanon is great. This information must be included in the caption of the picture.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Better!--Citron (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - new version much better! MPF (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment - don't think 'shrimp' is really the right designation; 'lobster' or 'prawn' would be more accurate. Shrimps don't have the large claws, and are much smaller. - MPF (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Ggia (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Good now. An FP image must have a perfect caption. He lacks the size of the specimen, but I've pretty bored like that. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Alt 1

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support thanks, I still prefer the black background. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I like both variants -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I favour the "black version" --Llez (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:The fossils from Cretaceous age found in Lebanon.jpg