Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/JellyfishInSea

Jellyfish in the Sea

Jellyfish in the sea

I think this is an interesting picture of a jellyfish. Not the best around, but at least it's not taken behind a tank.

It appears in the jellyfish article, and I took the picture myself.

Nominate and support. - Sprain 04:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a good-looking jellyfish photo. OneVeryBadMan 06:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Background needs to be improved. Also, the picture itself is not that significant. Heilme 06:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - subject cut off. --Janke | Talk 07:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - not worried about the cropping (see today's FP, the cuttlefish), but the blobs in the water and the light reflections are garish enough to significantly get in the way. The jellyfish itself could be a bit sharper too. Still, it's a nice pic. Stevage 11:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Dramatic colors, though. If the frame had been moved downward somewhat, catching the whole jellyfish and avoiding the light, I would support. -- bcasterline • talk 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Janke Mikeo 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The colors are pretty awesome but the pictures downfall is that the animal is cutoff. --Every1blowz 18:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I wan't to see the tentacles! Also a little smaller than I would like, however I will consent that it is technically big enough. --Pharaoh Hound 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ~~The glass can be seen.~~ Full-body would be better.--Enano275 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Valid points mostly. Just a few things to clarify. There's no glass. This is a underwater shot, not taken behind a tank. Picture is not cropped. The frame is as it was taken. Regarding comments that the whole tentacles should be shown, I actually do agree. It would be great if I could capture the long tentacles, but underwater shots have quite a bit of limitations. In this case, it would be visibility and lighting. The tentacles was a good 1-2m long, and I would have to get further away to take the shot, and that would mean reduced visibility and a lack of lighting which would make the photo greenish. Good points nonetheless. Probably not suitable for identification purposes such as this. Thanks!! --Sprain 01:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet it takes very expensive equipment to get good underwater photographs, and even then you would have to go somewhere with very clear water like the bahamas. Very commendable effort though, far better than any underwater shot I have taken. -Ravedave 03:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ravedave. I would say trying to take good a underwater shot is a little different from trying to take good shots for the purpose of identification. -- Sprain 03:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent.--Hezzy 01:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with some of the comments above, but think that this is still Featured Picture worthy. Looks awesome! --Quadraxis 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've had this on my desktop for a few days and the color is just great, the missing tentacles bother me less and less. -Ravedave 18:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Colors are too saturated and the tenticles are cut off. Janderk 22:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 09:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]