Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diente rostral de un pez sierra extinto (Onchorpristis numidus), Kem Kem, Marruecos, 2021-01-15, DD 187-243 FS.jpg

File:Diente rostral de un pez sierra extinto (Onchorpristis numidus), Kem Kem, Marruecos, 2021-01-15, DD 187-243 FS.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2021 at 13:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Diente rostral de un pez sierra extinto (Onchorpristis numidus), Kem Kem, Marruecos, 2021-01-15, DD 187-243 FS.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diente rostral de un pez sierra extinto (Onchorpristis numidus), Kem Kem, Marruecos, 2021-01-15, DD 187-243 FS.jpg

1876

3033

736

579

8767

4962

out of focus

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Class_:_Chondrichthyes
•  Info Focus stacked image (composed of 57 frames) of a rostral tooth from an extinct sawfish (Onchopristis numidus) found in the Kem Kem Beds, Morocco. The 8 centimetres (3.1 in)-long tooth comes from the Campanian (Late Cretaceous epoch) and is 80 million years old. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Neutral Outline, and other parts not equally sharp everywhere. Maybe f / 11 was not the best choice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  Famberhorst: The area noted by Ivar could be sharper, the outline is fine IMHO but again you look at a 50 MPx (apart from a chunk cropped on top and bottom to avoid big empty areas). I can definitely "offer much more sharpness" downsizing it, would you then support?. Regading the aperture, what would be your suggestion? The bigger the aperture the more frames I'll need and already processing 57 pictures of 50MPx takes a while...Poco a poco (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

*Answer: I have no experience with 50 MPx. But technically, I think f5.6 or f / 7.1 is a better choice. 57 photos also seems too many to me. I estimate that the depth of the photo is about 3 cm. used to be. If you divide that by 57 photos. Then the photos are very close together. And the program may mix it up. With some stacking programs you can delete a number of photos alternately. Then the end result is sometimes sharper. This is my personal opinion. You may experience it differently. Personally, I think a sharp outline is essential in a stacked photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Maybe I'm too easily impressed by this kind of photo or subject? I don't know, but it's impressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Closest area is not in focus (note added). --Ivar (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow, photographically. Sorry, I'm not getting the point of photostacking when the result isn't sharp and has all the photographic artistic merit of an ebay listing or passport photo. I don't really know what is wrong with just getting a QI or VI. Let's leave FP for images that have wow please. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• As diplomatic as usual Poco a poco (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Colin, sorry. Homogeneous and very bright surrounding along with focusing error makes the whole composition look rather uninteresting. --Ivar (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin and Ivar. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)