Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Blue Shark Azores

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

Blue Shark Azores, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2021 at 13:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Detail view of the head
    Detail view of the head
  • Back view
    Back view
  • Bottom view
    Bottom view
  • Side view
    Side view
  • Front view
    Front view
  • Tail view
    Tail view
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Carcharhinidae_(Requiem_Sharks)
  •  Info I'm nominating a set that provides a comprehensive view of a blue shark (Prionace glauca) photographed between the islands of Pico and Faial, Azores, Portugal. The blue shark is a species of en:requiem shark, in the family Carcharhinidae, that inhabits deep waters (images taken though between 5 and 10 meter below water) averaging around 3.1 m (10 ft) and preferring cooler waters. They can live up to 20 years, can move very quickly and feed primarily on small fish and squid, although they can take larger prey. I hope you like it and IMHO a nice way to say "hello!" again :) All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A beautiful series. Welcome back.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Welcome back! --Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Ahmed (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Head detail is perfect, following are ok, but front (head is oof) and rear view (posterization, quite low resolution and noise) are no go for me. --Ivar (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, some shots are better than others. I can on the other side hardly think of more challenging conditions that those here to take this kind of shots. Real underwater, wild animal, that moves very quickly. --Poco a poco (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm somewhat new here, and I don't see any guidelines on how to evaluate image sets, so I'll just comment for now. If evaluating them individually for FPC, I'd agree with Ivar on both of the last two. If taking them as a set, I'd say that the slight OOF head on the front view is fine, while it might not be technically perfect individually, it's a valuable addition to the set. The tail image is still not, it's dark and noisy and posterized, and I would drop it from the set or find an alternative. Viewed as a set, one last comment is that the colors and tones aren't quite balanced between the images; the tail image is darker than the others, the blues don't quite mach, and while there may be some occlusion of the shark from closer and further pictures, the colors of the shark could be better balanced between the images as well. --Lambda (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your constructive comment, Lambda. I agree with what you say, the front view is probably the best shot because it is indeed menacing, the problem (from the photographic point of view, but indeed a good thing) is that sharks were not targeting me and therefore that shot was pretty exceptional, in an aquarium you could have more luck with that angle. Please, have a new look to the image again, I've applied some improvements. I could still offer a second shot for the front: File:Tiburón azul (Prionace glauca), canal Fayal-Pico, islas Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 27.jpg but I still prefer the one I nominated.
    I also improved the tail shot, now is brigter and denoised. I can offer 2 alts for that one if you believe it is still not over the bar: File:Tiburón azul (Prionace glauca), canal Fayal-Pico, islas Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 12 alt.jpg or File:Tiburón azul (Prionace glauca), canal Fayal-Pico, islas Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 29.jpg. I believe that a view from the tail is necessary for the set to have it complete.
    I also tried to harmonize a bit colors/luminosity and therefore I retouched the head, the tail and the top view, but please, don't expect equal tones. WB is anyhow a big challenge underwater. Even having the same WB settings the tones will dramatically vary depending on the depth I was at that moment, the amount of water between me and the subject and (mostly) whether I looked up or down to take the shot. Poco a poco (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Support Thanks for the edits! Definitely a support now. There's still some posterization on the tail photo, but with the other cleanups I think it goes well as part of the set. I definitely understand, you're not going to be able to balance them exactly, but this is the kind of edit I was thinking of. --Lambda (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Remembers me the different views of my shells --Llez (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree :) you are probably quicker than me in this case, 1 day to prepare it, 1 day in the ocean to take the shots and 1 day to sort them out...but principally, the idea was, like you do, to offer all possible views of the subject --Poco a poco (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Welcome back Poco --IamMM (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Yes, glad you returned. I wish there was better definition of what a set should be and whether each image has to be FP on its own. I wouldn't nominate this lot as a set, but can we establish the rules? Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the third condition for a set (A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints) and I understand that it needs to be comprehensive which I think, is given here. One of the few advantages of underwater photography vs surface photography is the fact that it's possible to photograph a fish from all viewpoints. That's difficult for a spider, a lizzard or even a bird. And don't worry, I don't have many sets in the pipeline, maybe another one with 2 images, but I believe this photographic session was kind of special and deserves a FP set. Still, I agree that it is possible to precise the requirements for sets a bit more, yes. --Poco a poco (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice to see you've been swimming with the sharks during your absence . Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As others have noted, this is a bit of a mixed bag. The only one I think approaches FP technically is the head shot, being relatively sharp and clear. The only one at FP for composition is the front view, which is indeed a good catch, but only the rear is sharp and the face is blurred. The side view's not bad, and I could see that illustrating the various features of the shark body, though the tail is blurred. The detail view of the head is arguably just a "crop with your flippers" version of the side view, not a different angle. The rear shot is very weak (3MP). As a whole, it is very useful to have various viewpoints of the same shark, but I don't think that alone is enough to earn a set nomination at FP. Many of us have taken photos of subjects from various angles, and find that only one is good enough, or even that none quite tick all the boxes. Llez makes a comparison with the shell photos of different angles, but those are nominated as a single collage photo, not as a set nomination, and all the angles are equally high standard technically, even if some angles are more beautiful than others. I appreciate there are technical challenges in underwater photography. The photos in an FP set are expected to all be of FP standard, and only a bit of allowance made for a weak entry. This set doesn't reach that standard IMO. It is not uncommon for a set with weak parts to be renominated for the good bits. -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Just to many of them. Let keep some normal quantity.--Mile (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please elaborate your comment, Mile? which one of the 6 images should be removed from the set in your opinion? Please, bear in mind that my target here was to provide a comprehensive view of the subject following the 3. set criteria (A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints). I'd understand (and share) you comment in a case like this one, but not here. Poco a poco (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have 30 nominations, guess what mess would become if all would have 6 shots per nominee. To remove, i just checked Front view, foucs is in the middle and not on face. Even if all others are fine, this one spoil it. See goodness of one by one. --Mile (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Carcharhinidae_(Requiem_Sharks)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set/Blue_Shark_Azores&oldid=582880835"