Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Calocochlia pan 01.JPG

File:Calocochlia pan 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 14:34:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to be perfect for FP if you want to continue to feature all shells. The images are a bit noisy, not sharp on top and suffer from some CA. And I dislike the background (on it self insufficient for an oppose, but the rest is). W.S. 15:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is best to promote all the good images of shells that allow voting, anyone. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wetenschatje, are you really, um, serious with all those accusations? It's one of the best images on Commons I have ever seen. Are you not jus being hypercrytical? --Von.grzanka (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality I think and eye catching, but I agree with WS. Plus missing (As usual! --Llez (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)) a side of the shell. - Benh (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why do you want me always to show six sides of an object, whereas all your pictures of objects show only one? Your objects are as well three-dimensional as mine, why are six views obligatory in my pictures, but not in yours??? The Louvre Pyramid has at least 5 sides, which can be photographed (south, west, nord, east, and aerial), but you figure only one!! Where are the other views?? The same is for other pictures: The cathedral of Narbonne - here I would be very glad to see also the front, which certainly differs from the lateral view -, the Cour Carrée of the Louvre Museum (especially here it is yery easy, you must just turn a bit and you have the other views), and so on. --Llez (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want anything. But when providing 5 face, you basically mean to be exhaustive, but you're not. I don't mean to, in the examples you mention. You might as well provide a single view then. - Benh (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I never said, that I want to be exhaustive and I have already said, that the sixth view you insist always, gives no further information, it is nearly quite the same as the first. BTW, does it mean, one view or six? There are several featured pictures of shells with two or three views. Why didn't you oppose there??? Would you support, when I only show one view? I don't believe so. --Llez (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why getting through the trouble to take 5 views if it's not to be exhaustive ? No I won't support one view either because I'm just bored to see tons of shells here, which aren't even properly shot. I've supported several two or three views shots of objects (not shell) because they were properly taken (not 200 iso, not f/xx with xx very high _not the case here_, better lighting, not masking but instead plain background with a soft drop shadow). Notice that although I'm not a fan of shells, I don't always oppose them, like in your last nom because I think it was fine enough. - Benh (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Which ISO would you propose and why? I'm always interested in suggestions to optimize my pictures --Llez (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously, I'd propose ISO 100 for minimal noise. High ISO are for situations when there's not enough light and you need to maintain high shutter speed. In your case, you don't need to maintain high shutter speed since I guess you can leave your camera still to shot your collection of shells. - Benh (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think a black background suits much better. --Cephas (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried a black background, but then the outlines, especially in in lower left, are barely visible! --Llez (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. -Theklan (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good image and 10.000 x... pixels. But being a composition, the product could be better. The right image superior has color noise--Miguel Bugallo 18:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Some corrections done. --Llez (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Q.E.D.. W.S. 07:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good H. Krisp (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 11:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support C.Q.F.D.!! --Jebulon (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 13:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals