Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Paddletail

Paddletail

Hope Diliff doesn't mind me riding the coattails of his Grouper nom, but I like this shot. It illustrates the Snapper article well and was quite difficult to get - as with Diliff's it was taken through thick glass and low lighting which tends to make for difficult conditions.

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 12:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. A little blurry, but I can live with that! This image is encyclopedic, clear, and pleasing to the eye. --Pharaoh Hound 13:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1. It's even better now. Edit two has way too much saturation. --Pharaoh Hound 12:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Janke | Talk 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Great encyclopedic picture but a little blurry. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Composition is rather plain, and the tail is difficult to distinguish against the background. No serious flaws, but nothing especially notable either. Commons has tons of diagrams of these fish. -- bcasterline • talk 16:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I think the key word is diagrams. There are no actual photos that look any good. As for the composition, I think it's pretty much ideal for encyclopeadic purposes isn't it? I mean that's the angle all the diagrams are drawn at - persumably for easy identification. I could understand the "plain composition" if this was the Commons FPC where something a little more artistic is required, but for en FPC I think it covers all the points on Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? quite well. I think even the "head on" angle Diliff used in his Grouper shot was what some people considered a defect - "I don't think we get enough of the grouper". But obviously I'm biased and it up to you guys to decide... --Fir0002 www 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good photo is superior to a diagram, of course. But this photo, taken in profile against a plain background, is not so different from one -- and yet has less encyclopedic value because a diagram is perfect in ways a photo can't be. I agree that this photo isn't an egregious violation of any of the criteria, so I opposed weakly. I just don't think it's FP material. Is this really going to make a reader want to know more? -- bcasterline • talk 01:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I don't mind at all. Its a sharp, detailed photo of the fish, but the composition is a little underwhelming. Not sure why the others feel it is blurry though, as it certainly appears sharper than my grouper pic. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great pic. Renata 18:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder whether it would tolerate a little more saturation. That might fix the tail fin. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a fine shot, but not really anything special. I'm sure there are better "fish pics" than this. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be surprised, fish (or at least I've found) are extremely hard subjects to capture. Unless you have an underwater camera you have to shoot through the thick glass and low light of an aquarium. --Fir0002 www 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that there's a great deal of skill/luck involved in managing to capture such a fine representation of a fish like this, but IMO a FP should have a bit of "zazz" that this image lacks. I don't see how THIS image is any more worthy of FP status than any other clear shot of a fish. What makes this image any more "FP material" than this image?--Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe the example you chose wasn't really that good to argue your point (cut off subject, lack of sharpness, burnt out fluro blues) but I understand your point. Just for my benefit, what exactly is the difference between my photo, and Diliff's photo of the Grouper. Why is that so overwhelmingly support while this pic isn't? Just wondering so that I can improve. --Fir0002 www 11:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not the one to ask, since I voted Oppose on the grouper as well. ;) If I had to speculate on what would make your photo "better" (i.e., what would make me vote Support), I'd say that a bit more of the surroundings might be nice, or a more interesting background. All in all, I'm just not sure that a "vanilla" shot of any fish would do it for me. I don't know what else to say, sorry. Like I said, it's really a good shot of the fish, and invaluable to the article, but ultimately I don't think that it's "the best WP has to offer", although it certainly is the best shot of that fish. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, they're both ok shots. However, this pic makes me think "some fish", while the grouper pic goes "what the hell is that?". From an encyclopaedic point of view, they're both fine - but the grouper one is more interesting with the surrounding smaller fish and the space, and the "aquariumness" is less obvious. The grouper is also facing the viewer - a more interesting shot. Anyway, just my $.02 Stevage 18:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry, I just don't think it's the best picture of a fish that we have on Wikipedia. Morgan695 01:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As per Dante Alighieri 203.211.68.217 07:46, 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) 04:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fish ARE hard to capture, however, the image seems kind of plain, so I have to agree with Dante Alighieri on this one. --Mad Max 09:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. I have edited the image to bring out the tail from the background, as to me that was its main weakness. Have also slightly sharpened it. Agree 'profile' is most encyclopaedic angle for a fish photo, even though it may not make the most exciting photo around. --jjron 10:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2'. It needed brightnest, contrast, fresher/cleaner looking water. More color on the fish too.M jurrens 12:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support version 2 as per M jurrens. Witt y lama
Oppose Looks too much like an aquaruim shot and I prefer animals to be photographed in their natural environment. Janderk 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A fish tank photo is pretty ordinary. But that doesn't matter so much because it does not meet the first criteria for a featured image. Fish colors are way too dark, but I still don't like the edits. Good kitty 18:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all edits The original is too dark. Edit 1 is slightly better but still lacking that extra something. Edit 2 has an eye-catching background (interesting mix of blue and green) however, now something looks wrong with the tail and everything around it. It's noticeable that someone tried to lighten the background and it looks wrong because of the shadows and lighting on the tail. Plus, the fish looks overly saturated, but I know how that goes, I've gotten carried away many times myself when editing a picture. In any case, I may change my vote to weak support if someone combines edit 1 and edit 2; use edit 1 and apply the colors od edit 2, although slightly desaturated. That should keep the image looking realistic and with sexy colors.--Mad Max 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not a bad image... it is a routine image of a colorful fish. Nothing about it screams "featured picture." -- moondigger 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 10:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]