Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moon jellyfishes disturbing the top water layer of Gullmarn fjord 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Moon jellyfishes disturbing the top water layer of Gullmarn fjord 1.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2020 at 18:34:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Liquid
Info The fun part of photographing things in the fjords, is that sometimes you capture interesting things you don't see until you get home and open the photo on your computer. I never expected to capture how a thermocline "crinkles" the light when something disturbs it. The photo was taken on a calm, sunny morning after a rain, so it's likely that the layer is warmer water with some freshwater added. In this case that would make a thermocline coincide with a halocline and resulting in a very thin but visible pycnocline. This difference in density and the altered refractive index is what makes the water look "oily". The jellies are quite small and young, about 5–6 cm (2.0–2.4 in) in diameter, and since the are just below the surface and stirring up the pycnocline beneath them, that would make the layer of warmer freshwater on the fjord about 6–8 cm (2.4–3.1 in) thick at the time. All by me. W.carter -- Cart (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Cart (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Blurry. Would work if the jellyfishes were sharp -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment I guess I don't understand the standard for underwater pics. These are small jellyfish, and the one on the right is sharp at full page on my 19-inch monitor, and mainly, I find the water beautiful. I think we've promoted less sharp underwater pics lately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sharp on your 19-inch monitor? Well, clearly not sharp on my 4K screen :-) We might not have the same eyes, or the same photo in front of them :-) I think the water was a bit cloudy, the focus wrong, or the animal moving -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that this isn't a species photo, it's about the layer in the water. I've searched online for photos of thermoclines, but all I got was charts and texts. So I have nothing to compare with. --Cart (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, these small waves in the water are interesting and can document the phenomenon, perhaps as VI. But for FP they're interesting only with the animal. I don't think the quality is up to our current standards, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's ok if you don't like this photo, I have no problem with that. There are many better photos of moon jellies. But to exclude photos illustrating physics from FP, that sounds a bit strange to me. --Cart (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- What's strange in my review? Motion blur, perhaps 1/100s was too slow. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Great idea for a shot. I usually avoid commenting on Cart's nominations, but I agree with Basile Morin. You do need the jellies (or at least one) in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Cool and unusual picture. Quality is more than sufficient for me. Buidhe (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support It is a bit blurry, but I like it on the whole. Cmao20 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above, I'm afraid, I definitely don't expect crispy sharpness here but it is too unsharp Poco a poco (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support More for the phenomenon than for the quality --Llez (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak support: per Llez --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose The phenomenon depicted is not awe-inspiring enough to make up for the lack of sharpness. Sorry. StellarHalo (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)- Oppose Such a thing is very difficult to display and I am also of the opinion that the necessary sharpness is missing here.--Ermell (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is difficult to capture, otherwise there would be other photos of it somewhere. I captured it by sheer luck and I only nominated the photo because I thought the "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. " was still in use. Guess it's not. --Cart (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- A not perfect picture might not become an FP. The challenge would be to try again and improve the focus.--Ermell (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Ermell: I was quoting the rules of FPC (section "Symbolic meaning or relevance") in my comment above. So do you think should we remove that sentence from the rules, since it doesn't seems to be valid any more? The whole thing goes: Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. --Cart (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Nevermind, I might as well withdraw this and save myself the headache. --Cart (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
