Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raya mosaico (Raja undulata), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 92-93 PAN.jpg

File:Raya mosaico (Raja undulata), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 92-93 PAN.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2021 at 21:07:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Class_:_Chondrichthyes_(Cartilaginous_Fishes)
Info Undulate ray (Raja undulata) of approx 100 centimetres (3.3 ft) length and 10 kilograms (22 lb) weight, Arrábida National Park, Portugal. This species is endangered and is usually found on sandy, muddy or detrital bottoms, mostly at depths of 50–200 m (160-660 ft). All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question It can go deep, but is it not usually found in shallower water, as here? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed told that I was lucky...it's rare to see. The ray was ca. 20 m deep. Poco a poco (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noise. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20 m depth, no possibility to use lighting due to the big size (or a lighting that would cost a kidney), rare and moving target -> high ISO and some noise. Downsampling would have probably help for FPC. Poco a poco (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose partly oof. --Ivar (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it makes sense to put this candidate into perspective: look into the poor quality of aquarium pictures of this species we have on Commons. We have (apart from my series, from which this is IMHO the best candidate) no living QIs/FPs for the species, neither for the genus, nor family nor for the whole order(!), now wonder why. Poco a poco (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Colours are quite subdued at 20m without artifical light. Tiny processing error where indicated. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use special filters for my underwater shot. The image doen't definitely look the way it came out of the raw in terms of WB Poco a poco (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It may be a useful photo and it may be that we have few/no other photos of this species. That doesn't make it a great image. There are technical issues (noise, focus, lack of detail, subdued colours). The composition is purely functional as is the lighting. There's nothing dynamic. At FPC, "wow" is a requirement and can overcome technical issues. Without "wow" the result is like explaining to us that a joke nobody laughed at is really very clever and funny. The argument that we have no other good photos of this species/order isn't relevant to whether this image is among the finest on Commons: nearly all species on earth have no great images on Commons. I think this is a QI/VI and nothing more. -- Colin (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, quality just not sufficient for a feature though the image is without doubt very rare and useful, and as good as possible. COM:VI is the best place to get this promoted. --Kreuz schnabel 15:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]