Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lagis koreni (with and without tube).jpg

Image:Pectinaria koreni (with and without tube).jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2008 at 00:14:22

•  Info Pectinaria koreni created, uploaded & nominated by Lycaon (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lycaon (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Flat lighting, blown highlights as the light source isn't soft enough and the black background contrasts poorly with the top of the bottom specimen. THe bottom subject also seems marginally out of focus. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting camping worm :-)) First impression is lovely pretty but the highlights are 2 harsh and causing OE ... umhhhh yes, it's difficult to take pictures on wet or reflective animals - focus could be more crisp --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
•  QuestionThe image description indicates that the worm is from in "the Southern North Sea". The Google Earth shows the sea as the location of the image. Was it taken underwater or it is another sampled animal? I am asking because in this delisting nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Phyllodoce lineata.jpg user Mr. Mario said "keep" for the reason "Good for underwater pictures." , and you never corrected him. Ever since I was wondering if all those animals were really taken underwater or under Formaldehyde? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The geolocation indicates the spot where the animal was sampled, and in this case just about where it was photographed on board. But as you can probably see from the unfortunate highlights, this picture was not taken submersed. The other picture you mentioned is a different case as it is a microphotograph, taken with a dedicated camera mounted on a stereo microscope. There the animal was submerged in water (formaldehyde is only used for fixation, not for storage. For the latter we use denaturated ethanol). That shot was made in the lab. Lycaon (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. As a matter of fact I like the image. I really believe it is good enough and rare enough to be FP. Too bad I do not vote any more.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Support - Plenty of mitigating reasons for the technical flaws, including the high enc value and the beauty of the shell. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • IMO these aren't mitigating reasons for a shot in a controlled studio environment with a dead subject. Pictures taken in the wild etc are much more difficult too achieve good lighting and technical perfection and in that case then the support would be reasonableNoodle snacks (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Technically good image, but no WOW for me. --Karelj (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Uncommon and impressive picture (obvious wow factor for me). Quality looks good to me, but I'm not a specialist. Good candidate for the next Alien movie. --Eusebius (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Böhringer (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow for me. Flying Freddy (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Great picture!!! --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

result: 8 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)