Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sand crab (Ocypode brevicornis) at University Beach, Pondicherry 06.jpg

File:Sand crab (Ocypode brevicornis) at University Beach, Pondicherry 06.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2018 at 18:22:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sand crab (Ocypode brevicornis) at University Beach, Pondicherry 06.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sand crab (Ocypode brevicornis) at University Beach, Pondicherry 06.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
•  Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose it may seem like a minor thing but the colour of the background is too similar to that of the crab, making the subject stand out less.--Peulle (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I have no objections with the oppose but just wanted to clarify that the crab has been photographed in its natural habitat. I understand that the subject is not standing out due to this. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment - I like the crab, but I think the photo would look better with a fairly radical crop on all sides. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done - I have cropped the image a bit. I hope it is better now. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Support - This version has grown on me, and I like the alternation of light and shadow, but you could still consider cropping out more of the shadow in front if you like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment I looked at this image and had the same reaction as Peulle. I felt guilty about it, for reasons you articulate, Satdeep Gill (i.e. that's the way it's supposed to be! :) ). I went in and tried to tweak it a bit to separate the crab from the sand, and wonder what you think of the result: here is the original and here is the alternative. I tried to keep it relatively realistic, with only minor adjustments to the subject itself (i.e. most of the change is to the sand). Peulle, I'd also be curious if this change would be enough to change your mind? For the time being, I have reverted to the previous version so as not to disrupt this FPC (and out of respect for Satdeep Gill's preferences regarding his lovely photo). (Edit conflict) Suppose I should ping Ikan Kekek now, too, since he has opined while I was writing this. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites I agree this is a better version. I have cropped the image further as Ikan Kekek suggested. Please do these adjustments to the newer version. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Because I used two adjustment brushes, it seems considerably easier to crop the previously modified version rather than to apply the changes to a cropped version. I went ahead and restored the modified version and tried to reproduce the crop (it's not quite the same, but of course you can crop to where you see fit). Personally, I disagree with Ikan about this crop and prefer a bit more space (this version). This new crop also brings it below 2MP. :/ You may want to wait for additional opinions before changing, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm sorry, the photo is smaller than 2 MP now. I wasn't thinking about that. So unfortunately, it's not possible to crop the photo this much and still have it be eligible for consideration for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment The blending with the background is a feature. It is called camouflage. Unfortunately the picture is too small. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose too small. Charles (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yann and Charlesjsharp, the current image is bugger than 2 MP. Please check it. Apologies for too many revisions. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
    • No, the current size is 1.88 Mpx. Yann (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Yann, It mentions 2.63 MP to me. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• You are confusing MB with Mpx. It says: "1,924 × 978 pixels, file size: 2.63 MB" and 1924 x 978 = 1.88 Mpx. That makes it below limit. --cart-Talk 10:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yann, Charlesjsharp and W.carter, Apologies for all the confusion on my part. I have reverted the image to a version which should work. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Support support current version. Sorry to complicate things with the additional edit. Not sure either one is going to please everyone, though. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Just including more sand doesn't improve it me. There's not a lot of definition, but I realise the camera has limitations. Charles (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Peulle, too muddled. Manelolo (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 19:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)