Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Сорус папоротника Polypodium aureum 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2021 at 00:34:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Organic
- Info Fern sorus Polypodium aureum. Staining method: luminescence, 365 nm excitation spectrum / created by Anatoly Mikhaltsov - uploaded by Anatoly Mikhaltsov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- JukoFF (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support Awesome Buidhe (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Buidhe. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I fixed the gallery for you, again. Please remember to add the section as well. The images are sorted by a Bot now, and it can't find the right place whiteout it. The right section is also helpful for voter to compare with other FPs of similar plants. In this case, it can be compared to the existing FP of this fern by the same author, shot in natural light without any staining. --Cart (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edit. I did not pay attention to the innovation right away. JukoFF (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support.--Vulphere 09:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The existing FP says it all.Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Could you please elaborate on this for those of us who can't see this the way you do? --Cart (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I apologise for using an obscure English expression. I should have explained. 'Says it all' means that the existing FP tells us about the subject. The new FP adds no value, it says nothing new, and is actually misleading unless you know it is stained. If it happens that the new FP is truer to life then the nomination should be delist and replace as the existing FP would be mislaeading. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- The staining is used to better show the structure of the plant, and I think it does so excellently in this photo, more clearly than in the photo with natural colors. Staining is a good scientific method and should not be disregarded. Both photos are valuable, in different ways. I think a good solution would be to place this stained photo in the Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Organic gallery where we have other weirdly colored scientific photos like this. I have put cross references in the 'Other' slot on both files so they can be compared and for clarification. What do you think of this Charlesjsharp and JukoFF? --Cart (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Cart, thank you so much for finding peace in this situation. JukoFF (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- No problem,
we are allmany of us are passionate about photos. :-) I have altered the gallery for you. I too think it is better suited for a scientific gallery. --Cart (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't feel that strongly. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- No problem,
- Support sufficiently different IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Meiræ 16:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Support --Commonists 18:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- It would be useful to add the staining agent (iodine?) in the description of this image just to help distinguish it from the other FP natural color. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- The staining method is already in the description (luminescence). For many organic compounds/plants/minerals/etc. it is often enough to just shine a UV light on them since they contain natural fluorescent agents (duh... CSI). This can sometimes be helped along by the use of some chemical substance, but I don't think iodine is involved. Here a rather precise light at 365 nm has been used (see the file description), so I don't think any chemical has been added. Please compare with other photos of plants under UV-light, the blackthorn is the closest to this. The term for this is still "staining", since it is not looked at under natural light. There is also already cross-references between the two photos explaining what is what, per my comment above if you check the file pages. --Cart (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support OvalThunder9💬 20:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
* Support --Llez (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC) One vote is enough. ;) --Cart (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Lmbuga (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Organic