Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morena negra (Muraena augusti), Monte da Guia, isla de Fayal, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-26, DD 40.jpg

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

File:Morena negra (Muraena augusti), Monte da Guia, isla de Fayal, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-26, DD 40.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2021 at 10:16:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moray eel (Muraena augusti), Monte da Guia, Faial Island, Azores, Portugal
  • As you know, I have no expertise at all in underwater photography but I am an experienced diver. I have had many encounters with morays over the years and had I had a camera could have snapped good images. Morays seldom exit their holes and are usually easy for repeat sightings. They are not known to be aggressive towards divers. What sort of lens would have been used for this image? Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is what happens when you use a 16mm lens on a full frame camera. Hmm. I wonder what you get if you use a 35mm lens? Well Poco should know because he took this, this, this and this the previous year. All around 12 MP, not 3MP like we have here. All with much more detail and more animal visible. The first of these was promoted to FP in August 2020.
I get that this one has some dramatic darkness to it, but it is still just a very soft 3MP and if I draw a box round the visible animal, I get 0.5MP. If we pretend this is "Featured Thumbnail" for a moment, then this black moray is great with lots of detail and animal behaviour on show.
There are other morays on Commons such as this laced moray (8MP), fimbriated moray (7MP), a spotted one (6MP) and ribbon moray (11 MP, and taken with a Canon Powershot). We have an FP ribbon moray (3.9MP) from 2013 taken with a Canon Rebel. And this fabulous green moray (5MP) also from 2013 and taken with a Canon Powershot.
So why in 2021 should we accept a tiny 0.5MP image of a moray's head taken with $$$$ professional equipment when we've had better larger photos taken with consumer compact cameras? I get that it is impossible to change lens underwater, but plenty of us have been in situations where the ideal lens was at home, and you don't see Charles asking us to accept a blurry 0.5MP butterfly because he left his macro lens on the shelf and only had his ultra-wide on him. And, you know, there are plenty here who simply don't have the $$$$ to buy better equipment to reach FP standard for some of the photos they take, and just accept that. Perhaps I should nominate a mobile phone photo with a "Sorry, I left my Leica at home" excuse.
There are LOTS of really striking images on Commons that are only a few MP. Are the supporters of this one happy to drop the standards for all those, or is it just Poco's nominations that get a special pass? -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take for example Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:F-16 engine test.jpg, which is currently getting all its 30 million pixels pixel-peeped (compare it at 3MP with the above). Maybe Senior Airman Kevin Long should remind that none of us are experienced fighter pilots, and that Commons has no other photos of F-16 engines firing! -- Colin (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are not judging other images in terms of FPC, some of them look good, but that doesn't mean that this one isn't deserving the star. Indeed, some of those images come from experienced and skilled people outside of the movement with great archives that sharie some of their works with a free license, others are taken though in an aquarium. I'm sure that Charles will agree with me that taking a zoo picture is not similar to take one in a safari in Madagascar or South Africa, the same applies to an aquarium, and not to mention ethical aspects.
Same applies to images with more modest equipment, sure, why not? place, time, skills, etc. do play a role, photography is not mathematics.
No, I don't need a special pass, and I hope everybody judges this image as it is, still I will not get too close to a black moray just because others did. Poco a poco (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, the fact that other images were taken by non-Commoners is not a factor in FPC judging rules. Indeed, we very typically review such images more harshly than those by Commoners and they are much less likely to be nominated in the first place. None of the better images I linked to are taken in an aquarium, so that claim of yours is false. Your complaint about getting close to a moray is baseless, because you yourself have taken higher resolution images when you had a more appropriate lens on your camera. The real reason this image is so tiny and soft is that you had an ultra-wide lens on. At the FPC talk page, one reviewer claimed that for technical quality they expected "state-of-the-art image quality" at FPC, and they do indeed frequently pixel peep 24+MP images. But better and much higher resolution images have been taken and uploaded, at sea, with cheap compact cameras eight years ago... It is clear this does not represent a high level for technical quality, and at around 0.5MP for the creature, is an image with limited usability beyond web thumbnail. Not our finest. -- Colin (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are more issues at play here. Colin's assessment is good from a photographic perspective, but can I add another. Diego was, until recently, a self-acknowledged novice diver learning about underwater photography. Novice divers (and those they dive with) cannot control their buoyancy as well as experienced divers. Expert buoyancy control is essential to get close to marine life without damaging coral and scaring animals. Carrying a camera must make this even more of a challenge. Novice divers, and those they dive with, stir up silt from the bottom and this affects visibility. Finally, the finest underwater shots are taken in tropical locations at the perfect time of year with no plankton. You just don't get these conditions in the Atlantic. And the best shots are taken in really shallow water where the light is good. And I have dived with expert photographers who possess much more sophisticated technical set-ups. On land, we have had many years and many opportunities to perfect our skills and still struggle to get it right. There could be a drop in the credibility of FP if Diego's worthy images are promoted simply because they are better than other underwater shots we have on the site to compare them with. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp, I agree with you in mostly everything, bouyancy is a key and as you guess, it is more challenging with a big camera that needs own weights. At the begining it was a big issue and it didn't help me that I always insisted to have the camera with me, but the advantage was that later I didn't have to learn again how to deal with the camera. I guess that I needed about 30 to 40 hours diving to move gently in the water thanks to a good bouyancy. My only problem now is that if I go without a camera I don't know what to do with my hands :) I always try to go diving alone with an instructor, who are always experienced to avoid the risk of even worse visibility due to stired up silt. In fact, it's tricky to go with a group because they would always have to wait for me. I also agree with your comments regarding the Atlantic, but the fauna you find here and in the Caribbean or far Asia is different, so it still makes sense to try it hard in Europe IMHO (furthermore traveling far away is still an issue with COVID). And of course, shallow transparent waters where you find a lot of fauna would be a dream. Instead, I need different lighting sets and other stuff and have no place anymore for underwear in my suitcase. :)
One last statement about Colin's $$$$ comments above. As said, expensive equipment is not a guarantee for anything and you can get a great shot which far less money, we all agree on that, but I don't think that it is per se wrong. In general, if you have a clue about photography you should get better results with better equipment. I believe, that the movement should be happy about it, if I spend my money traveling to many places with expensive photo equipment and document all I see, and at the same time live in a tiny rented apartment. Seeing so many dollar signs somebody could believe I'm a rich guy throwing money through the window, but in fact that money is missed somwhere else... Poco a poco (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that the previous year Poco took several photos of a moray eel that are significantly higher resolution, far more detailed, display more of the animal features. So lets forget the beginner/expert factor or the clear Maldives or plankton and scary biting animals and just consider that compared to last year, the lens you had was not appropriate for detailed photos of small creatures. We are here to judge whether this is among the finest images on Commons, not to give Poco gold stars as a reward for learning to dive with a camera, or to make allowances for him still being a beginner diver. That's what barnstars and other personal messages are for. As I said, there are dramatic aspects to this image that look good on the wee thumbnail we have at FPC. Anyone here got a voting history that suggests they would support a 3MP (and 0.5MP subject) image like this from a non-commoner, or indeed, from just about anyone else but Poco? Confident that you've never opposed a 14MP underwater image for sharpness that looks just fine at 3MP? -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Muraenidae_(Moray_Eels)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Morena_negra_(Muraena_augusti),_Monte_da_Guia,_isla_de_Fayal,_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-26,_DD_40.jpg&oldid=617114764"