Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coprolito, Calatayud, España, 2021-01-05, DD 001-039 FS.jpg

File:Coprolito, Calatayud, España, 2021-01-05, DD 001-039 FS.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2021 at 09:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Others
Info coprolite, Calatayud, Aragon, Spain. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all parts are sharp (in a focus stacked picture I expect the whole subject being sharp), also some parts very grainy --Llez (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you, Llez, please, add a note about what you see? Poco a poco (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See notes --Llez (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Llez, I disagree with your assessment. Neither I see grainy areas nor consider those "unsharp" areas relevant. Apart from the fact that I'm offering 50 MPx, and see similar issues in the Prehnite candidate below (20 not 50 MPx) so I sadly have to come to the conclusion that you are using double standards here. Poco a poco (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting and sharp enough for me. I'd like you to add the estimated age of the coprolite, though, if there's any way for you to find that out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek I did some research, thanks for prompting me to do so. It belongs to the miocene, but I cannot guarantee that it's human (or rather hominidae), so I took that hint away. Poco a poco (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good. Thanks for checking into that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some of Ivar's criticisms are fair, but per Ikan Kekek this is FP for me. The extra resolution means that it's not fair to be quite as picky at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many technical flaws, flat light. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Podzemnik Same here, do you see those "flaws" in a resolution of 20 Mpx? and what do you mean with flat light, how many sources and where would you then expect (I used 3, a ring light on the lens and 2 additional sources on the sides)? Poco a poco (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: Well, if you look here or here, the light in these photos looks just great and the background immediately strikes you. Perhaps using a different background would make your photo look more wowy. Your subject is interesting of course but I believe that good photography means to make even uninteresting subjects interesting (like a shoe or a pomelo :). --Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Info As I did with the petrified wood candidate I also decided to offer here an alt version with a ~~white~~ black background. Pinging @Llez, Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, and Cmao20: Poco a poco (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine by me Cmao20 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh clipping, unnatural background -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't stand in the way of this, but I prefer the natural background. It feels like it's just floating here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, I take it back and propose an new alt right away. Poco a poco (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]