Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper.jpg

Giant Grouper

File:Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper 3.jpg

I haven't nominated anything in a while but it seems like the standard of picture candidates has been slipping a little. ;) Heres a photo I took earlier this year of a Giant Grouper. Its quite high resolution and detailed considering it was shot through a ~1 inch thick sheet of glass. It also shows both the grouper itself as well as the smaller fish that tend to follow it for safety.

Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have a bit of a problem here. In one article this is identified as a Giant grouper (E. lanceolatus), in another as a Goliath grouper (E. itajara). It can't be both. What gives? I quite like the pic, but can't support a pic that's associated with obvious misinformation. --jjron 11:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. I don't like the identification confusion any more that jjron, but the image is strong enough anyway. --Pharaoh Hound 11:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 3. It looks even better now. (and by the way, I don't think the fish hideous at all, on the contrary he's very regal looking) --Pharaoh Hound 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Good point. I remember it being identified as a Giant Grouper at the aquarium and added it only to that article - someone else has added it to the Goliath Grouper article. This misinformation is not relevent to the image itself and can easily be corrected. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up that error Diliff. Yes, I see that it wasn't you that attached this picture to the Goliath Grouper article. Let me just emphasise though that I don't think anyone should be nominating or supporting known erroneous images, after all this is an encyclopaedia, not just a photo gallery. --jjron 09:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support (original). Back in the groove, thankfully... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mad Max's edit. --BRIAN0918 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Horrible (in my opinion) fish, but nice picture. K ilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~original~~. That's a slick-looking edit Fir, but I don't think the rock hurts the composition and I'm a bit uneasy about adding fake fish to the picture. Redquark 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Support Mad Max's edit as the colors are much nicer. Redquark 23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think we get enough of the grouper. He's swimming towards the camera and we don't see enough of it body. - Hahnch e n 19:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original I like the picture and I dont' think the rock on the lower right side is hurting anything -- BWF89 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Hello, Every1blowz here (changed my name). I wasn't sure I liked the dull colors or contrast on the original, and it seemed to be tinted an ugly yellow with the small yellow fish taking on an almost yellowish-green color. Although Fir's edit was pretty clever, I also didn't think the rock hurt the composition. In my edit basically everything is the same except the water is actually blue and the yellow fish are actually yellow. I also sharpened the grouper a little. --Mad Max 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mad Max's edit or original. Hideous fish. -- bcasterline • talk 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original is good enough.--K.C. Tang 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original or Mad Max's edit. --Life is like a box of chocolates 00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fir0002's edit. Phoenix2 03:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original, oppose edits. The rock is ok, why bother removing it? Whats the idea behind the Mad Max edit? What makes you think the new colors are justified, or even better? --Dschwen 06:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a matter of asthetics. I think the blue water goes better with the yellow fish; they stand out more, as opposed to the original's teal color. Also, it may be just me, but the teal color seems to give the water a "murky" look, which I'm just not liking. The grouper has also been slightly sharpend in Mad Max's edit so that's good. --Life is like a box of chocolates 09:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have been through the argument of aesthetics vs accuracy in the past, but as the original photographer I can confirm that the water WAS a little murky in reality and the original colour is quite accurate. I run all the photos I take through a raw processor and colour-correct if I feel it is necessary. I can understand this is a subjective thing and I can see how the edit by mad max looks 'cleaner' but I don't think that sanitising an image for aesthetics is always as important as people seem to believe. An imperfect subject is equally valid if it is photographed well. For reference, This is a photo taken from the same aquarium (although not exactly the same tank or lighting conditions). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change my vote in response to this new information, but it really doesn't matter that much. I don't see how slightly changing the color of water in any way changes the photo's accuracy in any significant way. I mean, the photo illustrates a grouper, and in both photos the grouper is still there, the little fish are still there, and so is the rock, and they're all about the same color (the rock is a little redder but whatever). All that has changed is a slight variation in the waters color, what's the big deal? In fact, I like both the original and the mad max edit about the same, and in fact they are about the same, except as you said mad max's looks slightly "cleaner" and that was enough for me to prefer it. --Life is like a box of chocolates 10:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that the difference is minimal, but the accuracy is still important IMHO. The colour of the grouper in question has also changed - it isn't just the water and rock. That said, the colour of a fish under water will always be tinted by the surrounding water so it is difficult to see the 'original' colour of a fish without pulling it out of the water. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'll admit it makes very much sense to keep the water the same color if you plan to use this photo in the Georgia Aquarium article. However, if you're just going to use it to illustrate the grouper in the grouper article, then the difference in the waters color is not a significant issue. On a lighter note I have to commend you on your other photo, very cool shot man--Life is like a box of chocolates 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support original or MadMax's edit. Oppose removal of rock. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Oppose edits by MadMax and Fir0002. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Attractive shot, but a very poor depiction of the subject. Seeing a fish in "profile" is much more encyclopedic. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the Original 203.211.68.217 07:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All of User:211.30.199.85's edits are here on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 04:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Dante, it's a cool pic, just not the best pic of that subject. -Ravedave 03:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Agree with Dschwen, rock is cool and the darker blue is a bit weird. The teal-ish is what makes it unique and the rock sets the environment. --Fbv65e del ^{(discuss | contribs)} 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like with the snapper I prefer shots of animals taken in their natural environement. The colors look artificial, which is probably due to the aquarium light. Janderk 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It was naturally sun-lit. What is it about the colours that look artificial? Normal seawater is usually a similar blue-green colour. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - From my time spend free-diving and scuba diving the Caribean, the Indian and Pacific oceans the first two look too green and Mad Max edit way too blue. Maybe it's the color of the aquarium wall, the thick glass, or the murky aquarium water condition (as you state above), or just the color levels. Don't get me wrong, it is still a good shot, but to be featured: the colors should be more realistic of a natural environment; the subject a bit more from the side; a bit of natural environment (like a coral reef) should show up and at least some of the small fish should be in focus. Well maybe all of that is a bit demanding. The main reason I am opposing is because it looks like an aquarium shot, which is not that strange considering that it is an aquarium shot. I am Sorry for that. The good news is that it will probably get promoted despite my opinion ;) Janderk 10:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I edited the picture on an old(er) monitor which doesn't show colors as good as some of the newer models with coloreal technology. Now that I look at both pictures, the original isn't that bad and my edit isn't much better; it is too blue. I was going to go in and fix it but figured it'd be a waste of time since my edit probably won't be promoted anyway. --Mad Max 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mad Max's edit Simply beautiful. It's more fantasy looking than reality.--SeizureDog 11:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all versions. Just doesn't grab me. -- moondigger 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It grabs me. (I prefer either of the first two over the Mad Max edit, which is too saturated.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 10:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]