Neutral The fact that it's not in it's natural environment is totally irrelevant (it not dead btw), we 're judging a photograph here, not a philosophy. Quality is imo not high enough due to limits of the camera used. I'll try to shoot a new one in three weeks time... Lycaon18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLycaon What then are the criteria then for FP? Your voting record oppose/support fluctuates and in cases is contradictory, seems more like the result of personal taste and preference than objective evaluation based on long established photographic convention. Environment is totally relevant, if you judge photographic merit. Heck, I see people here opposing pictures for lack of a name... regardless of the image itself! Maybe it is time to establish serious, objective criteria free of personal bias. Just like science. --Tomascastelazo21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomascastelazo Criteria I use to oppose are: wrong license, low res (under 1 Mpx), obvious bad photography (exposure, DOF, sharpness), obvious bad composition (heavy tilt, bad crop) and missing or wrong info (incorrect or missing name). Support if oppose criteria are not met +/- points for rarity. Quite objective imo.
@Declic I did not nominate this picture because I know its faults (being the photographer) and although hi res, the quality is not sufficient, yet it got extra point for rarity in my book ;-) Hi res is important. 640x480 pictures are of very little value, while analog images can be scanned with fairly cheap scanners to yield accurate hi res renditions of the original. B.T.W., the picture was not taken in a lab but outside on a ship (RV Belgica) at 6 Beaufort. ;-o
We could use a scoring card system, where you assign a number (e.g. from 0 to 5) to several criteria. Summation of the scores will then tell you whether the image is feature or not. Similar systems are widely used in ecological assessments. Lycaon13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case much of photographs will be disqualified because they were taken at one time or the numerical cameras did not exist. I think "hi res quality" should be considered only lastly. A good camera does not make necessarily a good photograph. Declic01:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBernFiles The majority of serious contests of animal photographs disqualify the photographs which are not taken in natural environments. The labs photograph is relevant for taxonomic goal but without more and certainly not for FC. Salmo20:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support incredibly great taxonomic image, perfect specimen too. And we are judging photo tecnique merit, not philosophical or ethic question. Anyway, millions of that are caught everyday as human food, so can't see what's wrong if you take a photo of one of them before? (moreover, it is alive)--Jollyroger15:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also prefer pictures of living animals (unless there is a special reason, why the should be dead), but the critical point for my opposition is the missing environment. Roger McLassus10:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]