Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zebrasoma flavescens 01.JPG

File:Zebrasoma flavescens 01.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 12:44:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chromatic aberrations (was this shot through a glass panel/wall?), soft subject, and "flash" exposures (bright subject, extremely dark background). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Naturally it was shot through a glass, otherwise the camera would have got wet and unusable! And do you really think that it would be better if the subject wouldn't be bright and the background lighter and more disturbing? --Llez (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question rephrased would have been, was the fish photographed through a glass aquarium wall? Obviously underwater images can be taken with the camera in a watertight box, and obviously all images are shot "through glass" (the lens), so I think my original question was pretty clear in its meaning. Depending on the aquarium and the thickness of the glass, I would think any light would be overly refracted and the resulting image would not be crystal clear, as I believe the case is here—though I don't know if this was taken at a homemade water tank or a massive city aquarium. Either way, I think the glass is interfering with the light. As for the flash comment, flash photography can sometimes produce a rather unrealistic range of exposure, with slightly blown out foreground and extremely dark backgrounds. If it looks like flash photography, then I think that can be distracting and unprofessional. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do you ask the question above? It is very simple, just read the description. BTW: It is strange. W.S. has dissappeared, at the same time Kerαunoςcopia appears. Nearly the same voting behaviour, the same vacous user-page. Are you an "old friend" with a new identity? --Llez (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I can tell u almost for sure that Kerαunoςcopia is not W.S., who is by the way one of the most valuable contributor around (which is why criticisms on him annoy me) - Benh (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm W.S. because my user page is vacuous, you found me out. :) Anyway, sorry for missing the "museum" bit and for not putting two-and-two together. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the obvious flat flash lighting with its annoying drop shadow and dark background - Benh (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good apart from the lighting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 08:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Good apart from the lighting"? It is horrible in comparison to other underwater pictures we already have. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I found the lighting really, really horrible, I would oppose. However, the lighting here really isn't all that bad. The rocks could be dark just because of their colour (they weren't that far away from the subject, so I don't think that flash light would dissipate that quickly unless you're using a really tiny guide number). And if the fish looks flat, there's a good reason: yellow tang are flat. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kerαunoςcopia. W.S. 20:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]