Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vittina waigiensis - Variability.jpg

File:Vittina waigiensis - Variability.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2018 at 16:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Vittina waigiensis - Variability.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vittina waigiensis - Variability.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
•  Info This poster of focus stacked shells is made of about 650 single photos.
  Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support (ahem) Excuse my French but this is f**ing awesome! :) For FP, I like this better as a collection than individual shells; the great variations are shown throughout a solid series of images in high resolution. A truly excellent job. --Peulle (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC) P.S.: I'm totally using this as my screen saver from now on.
•  Support per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support «Thud!» Yep, that's the sound of my jaw hitting the desk when I saw this. This is the kind of poster you'd pay top dollars for in a museum gift shop, frame and hang in your hallway. --cart-Talk 19:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I'll just stick with «Thud!». -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support How does one even begin to do something like this? Manelolo (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 21:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support - Amazingly sharp! Make sure to look at this with the ZoomViewer. I got it to open the normal way, but it didn't look so sharp that way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support, but too many pixels in my opinion. See en:Image_resolution#Resolution_in_various_media, a poster A0 (1186mm x 840mm) "only" requires 156 MP. So, 331 Mp is more than twice too large for such giant prints ! Long to load and maybe impossible to open for standard computers. I think you could substantially reduce your next uploads or join a downsized version like here File:Krigsgiljan_at_Loddebo.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • • Basile Morin, Actually you only need 2MP for a billboard! And many large LCD advertising displays are only 1920x1080 which is even less (and a 4K display is only 8MP) :-) But yes for "fine art quality" you want 300ppi. -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please use "Zoom Viewer: no flash" --Llez (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's a great idea to make a 50% version of this file and link them in the file's description. It does in no way detract from the original image, it only increase its chances of being viewed and used. Far from all users know about the Zoom Viewer or how to use it either from tech ignorance or language difficulties. Seeing a text that says "50%" next to an image is much more understandable. Also the Viewer doesn't work properly all the time, I for one can't get it working on my computer. I got the idea for the 50% version of File:Krigsgiljan at Loddebo.jpg from one of Colin's photos: File:Royal Albert Hall - Central View Square.jpg, a 111 photos image which is also available in 50%, 33.3%, 30% and 20% plus selected crops from the original. --cart-Talk 09:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Cart about offering a 50% downsize. Not everyone's computer can handle this and others may wish to download the image rather than just view bits through the zoom viewer. MediaWiki's thumbnailer is able to offer downsized variants but only upto a certain limit in size. For my RAH photo, I offer some smaller size using the thumbnailer URL and just the 50% downsize as a separate file (as it is too large for the thumbnailer). -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Though I think modest downsize would have been fine (e.g. 75%) and probably not really lost any information (since out-of-camera sharpness is a bit of an illusion on Bayer-sensor cameras), also since only part of the each shell is in sharpest focus. -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. For those, who have problems with the large size, you find a a smaller version here --Llez (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Support another thud --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support `` P999 (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support HEV and Wow factor! Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 21:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils