Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coprolito, Calatayud, España, 2021-01-13, DD 001-029 FS.jpg
File:Coprolito, Calatayud, España, 2021-01-13, DD 001-029 FS.jpg, featured , featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2021 at 20:41:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Others
- Info Coprolite (fossilized excrement) from the miocene (between 23.03 to 5.333 millions of years ago) found in Calatayud, Spain. As I don't give up so easily and not just me believe that the items is FP-worthy I bring a new nominamation after this one failed with a "cleaner" surface, 100% sharpness and still at full resolution. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support The sharpness seems better this time. I would be surprised if it didn't pass now. Cmao20 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I hope, Cmao20, there are indeed some improvements here although I'm aware that there is still things than I can (and will) improve overall. --Poco a poco (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support yes for this one. --Cayambe (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Much better version --Llez (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Llez.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Podzemnik in the previous nomination: the lighting is bad. In the previous nom, the lighting is described as "a ring light on the lens and 2 additional sources on the side". The ring light is a mistake IMO, and the left/right lights shouldn't be equal. The lighting should emphasise the form (twisting round shape, with some parts closer and some further) and texture (a gritty quartz-like stone?) and neither are apparent at all. Despite the 39MP there is very little surface detail apparent and it sort of looks like an unsharpened 18MP image that has been upsized. -- Colin (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Compare File:Philips Series 7000 shaver head.jpg, which is lit from a flash aimed at the ceiling and so providing a soft light from above. The curved form of the blue discs and the silver edging is immediately apparent: you don't have to know or guess the shape. The textured metallic-effect plastic is glitteringly rough against the smooth metal centre and all the folds of the metal grill are clear to the eye. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment 1) The lighting on left and right wasn't equal 2) without a ligth source at the front the answer here would have been without any doubt "bad lighting" the object is in shadow. The image is IMHO sharp, specially if I compare it to other noms lately of clearly less MP and where the statement would be "although it's a 25 MP image it sort of looks like an unsharpened 10MP image". Lighting on the top doesn't make any sense here as the interesting view is not from the top but from the side. Poco a poco (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I recommend "Light ― Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting". The 6th edition is due out in April.
- Poco, I'd like to know why you (and any of those who supported) think this is among the finest images on Commons and has "wow". Corprolites are extremely common: they were once mined on an industrial scale, as fertilizer. I recommend visiting the Poozeum for all you could possibly want to learn. This example appears unexceptional, without notable inclusions that might enlighten us as to the source animal or their diet. Image-wise, we have a beige blob that has been unimaginatively placed on a piece of white paper, and lit by exactly the wrong light. Although it is focus stacked, that is nothing special these days, and a convex solid shape is the easiest subject to stack. The image may be 39MP but that's just a lot of pixels of beige and grey, not herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically....
- As a specimen photo, I suggest trying to photograph it isolated without any visible support/base. Many images of fossils this colour are on a black background, rather than white, which should be achieved with lighting/backgrounds in the scene rather than with the scissors in Photoshop. The lighting needs to bring out the twisting form, and since one bit of this poo looks the same as ever other bit, we don't need or want to see all of it as evenly lit as every other bit. You could, for example, just light the top twisting portion and leave the bottom fading out dark. It may not, to be honest, be worth the effort. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the book hint, will look into it.
- Regarding your comment about how common coprolites are or not, I don't believe that you are objective and fair. We have never had something like this on Commons, why that if they are so common? It's like if you tell me that a candidate of mine is not worthy because there are millions of sardines or crabs. The point to me is that so far non of us came accross something like that and photographed it with the target of achieving good quality (or maybe it's hard to find good coprolite images with a free license on the web). You can add so many links you want, still coprolites are underrepresented here.
- The candidate above is not isolated, there's a visible support and I didn't use any scissors from Photoshop, indeed I didn't even use Photoshop. Regading the choice whether the background should be black or white I took an shot in both and opted to propose this one to FPC but I just uploaded for you the version with black background, see here, you like it? Poco a poco (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't say this candidate used Photoshop; I was saying how an on on-black isolated photo should IMO be done. I know you have uploaded images that do use Photoshop scissors and I don't think that is FP level photography. The other image doesn't have a black background: it is grey. But can you (and others) not see how in places the lighting in the other photo is superior. Look at the bottom left and along the top. The glancing light brings out the shape of the stone, where in this nom the shape and bumps are virtually hidden. I think it is a shame the other photo doesn't show the twisting form, for it is that form that makes it clear to be a coprolite rather than random lumps of rock.
- There are lots of things that are common that Commons lacks a huge quantity of images of. That doesn't change them from being common. I imagine nearly all households own a steam iron, yet there are about the same number of photos of such as there are of coprolites on Commons. There are millions of Philips electric shavers in the world yet we have only a handful of images. Does that permit me to take a very ordinary photo in bad light and expect a gold star? So, your argument doesn't hold examination. We are here to judge if it is among the best photos on Commons, and has "wow". By that standard, I'm judging this as a studio photo taken at home with ample opportunity to select a visually interesting subject and to take it with the highest level of skill and technical achievement. We have hundreds of thousands of professionally photographed museum exhibits on Commons, why are we giving a star to a beige blob on a piece of paper? Well we know why, and it is nothing to do with the photograph. -- Colin (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Colin and my previous comments. Light is everything. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Question is there any idea what animal this is from? Seven Pandas (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Tricky to say, it cannot be human because it's too old for that (in that case it would have been a hominid). An expert suggested that according to the spot where I found it and its appearance it could a hyena poop but I cannot say with certainty Poco a poco (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Neutral sort of like it but see the concerns too. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Tricky to say, it cannot be human because it's too old for that (in that case it would have been a hominid). An expert suggested that according to the spot where I found it and its appearance it could a hyena poop but I cannot say with certainty Poco a poco (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Colin & Podzemnik. --El Grafo (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Others