Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Espirógrafo (Serpula vermicularis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 02.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Espirógrafo (Serpula vermicularis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2021 at 06:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Calcareous tubeworm (Serpula vermicularis), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Polychaeta
  •  Info Ca. 5 centimetres (2.0 in) small Serpula vermicularis, Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. Serpula vermicularis is not a flower, plant or a coral but a segmented marine polychaete worm. Yes, a worm in the family Serpulidae that lives in a tube into which it can retract. Serpula vermicularis is a filter feeder and extends its radioles to catch phytoplankton and detritus. If you approach to them they retract instantly. The tube where the worm lives is calcareous and is attached to a rock, boulder or other hard surface and has a length of 20 centimetres (7.9 in), but is usually shorter than this. The tube is built by the worm using calcium stored in two white sacs on the ventral side of the second segment, or peristomium. The tube is fabricated by the glandular ventral shields on the other thoracic segments, where calcium is mixed with an organic secretion to make a paste. This is formed into shape by a collar found just behind the first segment, the prostomium. The anterior part of the worm protrudes from the tube and has a plume of about 40 feather-like radioles projecting from the peristomium, which also houses the two eyes and the mouth. A funnel-shaped lid or operculum covers the entrance to the tube when the animal retracts inside. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Small picture, does it meet the 6MP requirement ? Also, right now it looks soft to me around the edges and corners -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Small (3.6MP) and so soft it seems almost to have been upscaled. Quite a lot of what we see is blurred, for whatever reason. Importantly, this is a tube worm, and we can't see anything recognisable as a tube, which greatly reduces the EV. It is a bit like one of those close-up photo quizzes where contestants are asked "What on earth is this?" and the photo zooms out to include more or better examples of the subject. Compare File:Serpula vermicularis 1.jpg which although also small, has sharp detail of the head, a good amount of the tube too, and is clearly and obviously a tube worm. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Colin, Dey.sandip. No, the image hasn't been upscaled, in fact, I've never upscaled any of the over 20,000 images I've uploaded on Commons. I've increased now the sharpness/clarity and the crop, which was a bit tight as it seems to be a major success factor here (offering now 5,6 MP). Is there a rule about 6 MP? I haven't heard about that and I cannot find anything here. Getting detail of these things is really tricky, they are very shy, Charles can confirm it, and vanish in 1 msec. The feedback regarding the missing tube is fair. I do see detail here but there is of a shallow DoF, too. I've been thinking about nominating this 2 images (1, 2) as a set, what do you think? Poco a poco (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't think you would upscale, but there really isn't any pixel-level detail in many of these shots, which is a problem if you are only offering 3MP to begin win. I wonder if your shutter speed is too low. 1/200 (and 1/250 in your linked examples), for shooting moving wildlife seems too slow. DoF could also, I agree, be an issue, but I can't really say I found any part to have detail that wasn't several pixels wide. Wrt the linked pair, I'm not keen on set nominations becoming a poor man's video. I know the set rules allow a sequence of frames but I think there has to be a purpose behind freezing the frames for close study rather than simply offering what could be two frames of a better video. For the open frame, you can see a little hairy plant/creature above the tube is quite sharp. But the tube is mostly completely out of focus, and the worm head is soft again likely due to motion. For the closed frame, the focus seems to be slightly in front of the tube, and the head is quite out of focus with just sharpening artefacts. I'm sure you are pleased to have captured a specimen but I think you do need to consider the usual FP aspects of "wow" regarding the whole image and photographic aspects like composition, subject-isolation, lighting. Compare your File:Gusano de fuego (Hermodice carunculata), Madeira, Portugal, 2019-05-31, DD 45.jpg where the animal stands out immediately from the surroundings, and is snaking through the frame. Or compare File:Spirobranchus giganteus (Christmastree Worm - yellow variation).jpg and tell me your reaction on seeing that isn't "ooooh". The light and colours and pretty christmas-tree form jump out at you. That's what FP should be about, rather than a photo that is more: I managed to get it all in the frame, bits of it are in focus, and we don't have anything better on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support For such a small subject it is justified,in my opinion --Commonists 19:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Espirógrafo_(Serpula_vermicularis),_Parque_natural_de_la_Arrábida,_Portugal,_2020-07-31,_DD_02.jpg&oldid=617095230"