Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lophius piscatorius MHNT.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Lophius piscatorius MHNT.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2012 at 09:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Citron (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)- Support wow-effect is here :) Totodu74 (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 10:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Dangerous! I think he want to eat someone.--Claus (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Yiyi (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support--Cayambe (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- How brilliant can you get? TrebleSeven (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- JLPC (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support I do not know if what I say will get you to vote favorably. To read the caption you can imagine she was caught by a scientific expedition on a research vessel lined high. But in fact, this fish was bought at the supermarket, and I fear that fleshy part have been consumed by people in the laboratory. Rest assured this is not the case with all animals that pass in taxidermy. This specimen, very well prepared, is part of the collections on permanent display. Thank to Citron (qui n'en a pas mangé) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support great picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It is a dramatic picture, and looked great in the preview window. But then I click on it and see it has been rather crudely cut out from its background, stuck on black and what I assume to be a fake shadow/light-spot created. There's banding on the light spot. I will try another computer tomorrow to see if it is just my display, but the banding is pretty awful on this one. The lighting of the skeleton, although dramatic, does lack subtlety. Sorry. -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)- Sorry for the lack of subtlety of the lighting. This is a piece that was expressed in premanante in a glass wall open to the outside. The light is the sun there is none else. The reflection of the windows, the background make it hard clipping of this animal. The new background is actually artificial, what to see is the animal. And it's so nice for a scientific photogrpahe occasionally have a little fantasy. :)--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I'm just learning Photoshop myself but I'm aware there are many subtle ways of lifting an object from one background to another, and this seems to have had a hard cut all round, which isn't the technical standard I'd expect at FP. Regarding lighting, even with just the sun as the light, one can soften it or reflect it. There's a strong colour-temperature difference between in and out of shadow, and the tail in particular is poorly lit and at a completely different temperature to the head. I do like how the hard light has highlighted the texture in the spine, but this works less well on the head which might have benefited from some reflected light to lift the shadow. I see I'm pretty much alone in finding fault with it, though, so you shouldn't have any worries about it making FP! Colin (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was not angry of your comments, which for the most part are fair. Instead I think we should take the opportunity to explain our views. It was a pleasure. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I'm just learning Photoshop myself but I'm aware there are many subtle ways of lifting an object from one background to another, and this seems to have had a hard cut all round, which isn't the technical standard I'd expect at FP. Regarding lighting, even with just the sun as the light, one can soften it or reflect it. There's a strong colour-temperature difference between in and out of shadow, and the tail in particular is poorly lit and at a completely different temperature to the head. I do like how the hard light has highlighted the texture in the spine, but this works less well on the head which might have benefited from some reflected light to lift the shadow. I see I'm pretty much alone in finding fault with it, though, so you shouldn't have any worries about it making FP! Colin (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: The fake shadow is really not great with heavy banding and strange partial blur on the edges. Without it, though, I could see a FP. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Qu'est-ce qu'il leur faut !! Ne change rien. Le dégradé (heavy banding) de l'ombre donne justement son charme à l'image, montre bien que c'est une licence artistique que tu t'autorises et que tu ne cherches pas à tromper le spectateur. FP évidente.--Jebulon (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose the fake shadow feels too fake. →AzaToth 23:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
