Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Fish from hawaii.JPG

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Image:Fish from hawaii.JPG, not featured edit

  

result: withdrawn => not featured --Simonizer 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit1, not featured edit

  

result: withdrawn => not featured --Simonizer 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit2, not featured edit

 

I would like to point out (not for the first time ;-) that there is no "size requirement", just a guideline :-) --Tony Wills 10:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support This I like. Dori - Talk 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Size can (occasionally) be mitigated, this kind of unsharpness not. Unusual circumstances of taking a picture are very rarely enough to pass a picture of insufficient quality. "It is not because I had to climb the shaky crown of a tree to make a picture of a crow that the picture has more value than if I had taken it with a proper telephoto lens from the solidity of the ground." Lycaon 04:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very strange you selected the example with a crow and with shaky crown and with the solidity of the ground. It sounded almost as you were going to support the image, which could not have been taken from solidity of the ground even with a proper telephoto lens :) In my opinion we should remeber that the nominated image is not of a common crow, but of a fish that I saw only this one single time after snorkeling for many hours in few oceans and seas. Besides I had no other choice as to swimm in rather shaky ocean, while the fish was swimming too (btw turning from side to side, as you could see from the other version of the image). I'd like to repeat one more time a quote from the selection criteria: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject.. Besides I really believe that the nominated image is good enough in a thumnail and in full resolution too, which is 1632 × 1224 and is even a little bit bigger than the size requirements. One more thing with a crow example. It says:It is not because I had to climb the shaky crown of a tree to make a picture of a crow that the picture has more value than if I had taken it with a proper telephoto lens from the solidity of the ground". In my oinion the value of the image and image quality are two different properties of the image. The image could be of a great resolution and quality and have no value(I mean encyclopedic value) whatsoever. --Mbz1 04:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    • 'Unusual circumstances' (Lycaon) seems a strange phrase to use, the usual circumstances for taking pictures of fish is under water where they live, the only alternatives would seem to be pulling them out of the water or putting them in an aquarium. There does not seem to be a 'telephoto' lens type alternative. So the consideration is the difficulty of obtaining better shots in this environment - this is not a matter of choosing a better time or place or lighting conditions. The number of featured pictures taken in the sea appears to be two or three, I think one implication is that it is not as easy to photograph fish in-situ as it is to photograph a building, flower or insect. --Tony Wills 10:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Dezidor 11:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral Interesting fish, but is it a FP...? --Leafnode 06:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well in my opinion it is. It is rare to see a fish swimming on his side as this one does. This fact by itself is already add a value to the image. Besides the position of the fish allowed me to take a picture, which shows colors and the fish itself.--Mbz1 13:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Again, an unusual subject, but this isn't enough to me. I'm very sorry, but I can't support a picture of this quality at this resolution. This wouldn't be of much use if printed at a reasonable size. When a 10 mpix picture has this quality at real size, it can be saved by being scaled down, but here I feel the resolution was just to meet the guideline recommandations. Benh 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your assumption about meeting guidlines are wrong. I do not do it with my images. I always upload the highest resolution. How you came up with 10 mega pixels number? It is a very wrong speculation.By the way I printed the image at my home printer 8*10 and it came out just fine. I do not mind, when my images are getting opposed. I do mind, when an opposser has no idea what he's talking about.--Mbz1 00:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Low quality, it could have been realy better with different settings Acarpentier 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I see you are familiar not only with sockpuppet, but also with underwater photography.--Mbz1 17:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you have problem with me. Anyway my vote here is on the work. You are mixing things together, I'm not. If you don’t want comments don't post. Please read the Guidelines for nominators.

Acarpentier 23:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once again you did not understand what I meant. The thing is that, if a person, discusses the changig of the settings for a point and shot underwater camera (which was used to take a picture), this person looks laughable and ludicrous simply because this peson has no idea, if the camera used allows the change of the settings. Well, for your information, it (the camera) does not allow to change the settings. Please notice I love, when I get votes on my images (opposes or supports). So, please do keep your opposes coming.--Mbz1 01:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 (UTC)

  • Next time I'll make sure to ask the fish to swimm in a better composition,but to tell you the truth I do not see anything wrong with this composition either.--Mbz1 18:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I dislike in the composition is the view from the top; In my opinion, a view from the side is really better. Don't try to talk to the fish, but be more patient, a good composition could append with a bit of chance. (please, use :*, ::*... instead of **) Sanchezn 23:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for explaing what you do not like about the composition. In my opinion your opinion would have been right in general situation, when a fish swimms on his belly, like they usually do. Here however I got a different situation. The wish was swimming on his side. In my opinion, if I took a picture from the side I would have got only a line of a fish instead of the whole body, as you could see at this image: , when the fish turned around. That's why in my opinion, a view from the top in this particular situation worked much better in order to show as much of the fish as possible.--Mbz1 01:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose IMO the photo has too many technical problems; I find the crop is too tight, it is not sharp which combined with a low resolution makes it hard to discern important details. For me, this kills wow. -- Slaunger 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   
result: withdrawn => not featured. --Benchat 06:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Fish_from_hawaii.JPG&oldid=7914058"