Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg

Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg

Edited

Transparent Image

Well, great minds think alike, and so here is another great gastropod image. It appears in Pulmonata. Photographer is one Jürgen Schoner, uploaded to Commons as GNU-FDL by User ML.

Nominate and support. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 17:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The detail is nice, but I don't like the artificial background. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-28 17:54
Weak Oppose. Yes, the background.--K.C. Tang 01:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like the background zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the background too, a pure white background is the most acceptable artificial background in my book. I will ask the contributor if he/she has a larger image, as that would be really good. --liquidGhoul 09:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got no problem with the background, but you ask for a larger image when it's already 1024x604? I really don't get why people always want bigger and bigger images. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with asking for a larger image? There is no harm in it, and it could improve the image's quality. I didn't oppose the image, so what is your problem? --liquidGhoul 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't see why we should ask for something with a higher resolution when it's already top-notch resolution. Higher resolution doesn't equal higher quality. You may not have personally opposed it, but it fosters the idea that massive resolutions are better when most people can't even fit such an image on one computer screen. Besides, if they had one, wouldn't you think they would've posted the larger one instead? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LiquidGhoul has now explained he was hoping for a better detailed shell. So contrary to what I believed, he had a perfectly valid reason for asking. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Within reasonable limits (file size, the lens' ability to resolve detail and number of sensor pixels), there is never a good reason to upload a lower quality/resolution image. I sometimes downsample my images by about 50% in order to aid in the perception of sharpness, as long as there is no significant loss of detail in doing so, but as a rule, I try to keep them as high resolution as is possible. Assuming the image is captured with anything higher than a 3 megapixel camera with decent quality optics, there is no excuse for an image less than 1000 pixels on the longest dimension. To reduce it further than that is to waste the potential of the image. I think he had a valid reason for asking as it originally stood since it logically follows that higher resolution image will resolve more detail! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - No problems here, in my case. Hillhead15 09:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, prefer animals photographed in their habitat, shadow on the right distracts and composition isn't feature worthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose due to the artificial looking background. --Janke | Talk 17:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the background. It is artificial, but also plain enough for me. –Joke 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd like a larger version as well (close-ups of the shell would be cool!), but this is certainly "large enough". Background is great. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit low res tho --Fir0002 www 05:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another version provided, where the colours are a bit better defined I think. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 14:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Neutrality^talk 05:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support the 2_nd image since the background on the first one is too distracting. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original. To me, the pure white background is distracting and fake looking.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe because it is fake. I cut the snail out because some people complained they did not like the grey and the lines in the background. It's white because I cut it out of the background and put it on a pure white layer. I also enhanced the colours slightly, as you would notice if you opened the image in full view. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly know that it is fake, my problem with it is that it looks fake, or overtly unnatural. I normally would support such a change, however the snail does not cast much shadow itself, so I feel as thought the gray in the background it nessesary in order to maintain a sence of reality. I certainly noticed the color change and think that it is much better, though the loss of the background is too distracting for me.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 23:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I uploaded a transparent version of the image (Image:Grapevine_Snail.gif) Alvinrune ^TALK 22:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (original). Size is fine, background is more or less fine and its a good illustration. On the Helix (genus) page we have Image:Common snail.jpg which is featured on Commons and is quite similar with a natural background. Its mainly the rather flat lighting that weakens my support here. -- Solipsist 09:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image, prefer 2nd picture. Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 20:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mainly because it's not striking enough, also because of the artificial background.--ragesoss 18:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg Votes are very evenly split between the original and the blanked background version. If there is no partictular perference between the original and an edit I promote the original. Raven4x4x 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]