Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Georgia Aquarium - Cuttlefish Jan 2006.jpg

Cuttlefish

This is a photo I took recently at the Georgia Aquarium. I'm expecting a tougher crowd on this one as it is a subject that is difficult to capture. Overall, I'm pretty happy with it though, as it shows two cuttlefish with very different 'personalities' - one has its tentacles drawn in and is swimming along, while the other is playing the role of (friendly? mating? I'm not sure!) aggressor and is visibly using its agile tentacles to hold the other. Considering this was shot through glass, I was happy with the lack of optical dispersion and it doesn't appear to have lost much sharpness. I think that although the environment could be a bit prettier, it is a good example of cuttlefish in action. Compare to the previous image for the cuttlefish article here[1]. Your thoughts?

Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. I like this one a lot. - JPM | 05:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That one in the back is really a shame, nearly ruins the image. Nevertheless, the position, interaction, and expressions on the two in the foreground are stunning. Weak support current version, would Strong support if someone could adequately remove the background fish. Zafiroblue05 06:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI removed the one in back and it set them off even better. My program isn't that great, some one with a better program could do it perfectly. It's an amazing image nonetheless.--Dakota ~ ε 10:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could we possibly see your edit of the one in the background gone?
  - Yes, I will upload later today, but as said my program is not the greatest.--Dakota ~
  - What license would be used for an edited version of this?--Dakota ~ ε 16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL--liquidGhoul 02:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ε 15:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC) ^KILO-_LIMA 16:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very nice. ^KILO-_LIMA 16:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --liquidGhoul 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Interesting and very well-captured. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Interesting, but the one at the back seems to have an unsightly glow to it. However, I wouldn't advocate removing the one at the back, because that would possibly mean its shadow on the right hand side would look out of place. enochlau (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the back cuttlefish have a shadow at the back? I'm not seeing it... Zafiroblue05 20:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That dark stripe on the right - that isn't the shadow of the back cuttlefish? enochlau (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I figured that was a "ledge" of some sort on the tank's floor. But now that I think about it, I think you may be right... Zafiroblue05 01:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks alot better than the previous image.--Ali K 15:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mayamaxima 16:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
( − ) Oppose Poor composition. Unbelievable quality for ISO 1600, but the cuttlefish is cut off. Would support a similar photo with the full cuttlefish.

In case you are wondering, I supported Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gecko Revision even though the tail was cut because I feel the tail of a lizard is pretty uninteresting and when included can make the lizard's head/body too small. Obviously tail would have been preferable, but I think it didn't detract as much in the instance. The cuttlefish however isn't long like a lizard and therefore the addition of it's rear end would make the photo much better IMO --Fir0002 22:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there really isn't anything of significance to the cuttlefish tail. And you can see the tail on the lower cuttlefish. Fair enough though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet - well, strictly speaking it's irrelevant how hard or easy this was to capture, it's the end result that matters. I like the sharpness, but the colors are a bit pale IMHO. Maybe it's worth trying to bump up the saturation?.. Eyesclosed 08:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think people are less lenient to photos that had shortcomings that could have easily been avoided. Or that could be fixed by reshooting. This isn't one of those photos. That said though, I was expecting a tougher crowd BECAUSE it has flaws. It does crop the rear of one of the cuttlefish and there are blown highlights on the rear cuttlefish. I can accept that, but whether the technical imperfections are more important than the fact that its an interesting and detailed photo is something that I put out there for you guys to decide. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I simply like it - Adrian Pingstone 17:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's great! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this photograph is, well, beautiful. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. I know it was a difficult shot, but the composition is not to my liking, one half cuttlefish in the background, and one of the front ones is cut off... Maybe a longer stakeout next time, to get an even better shot? Oh, yes, this is miles better than the old image you mention, but still - we seem to collectively have set very high standards for FPs at the moment. --Janke | Talk 21:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic picture. Samsara _contrib ^talk 00:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. I don't think the background is distracting at all. Its great. Pschemp | ^Talk 07:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. –Joke 04:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Georgia Aquarium - Cuttlefish Jan 2006.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]