Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Synodus 'ulae.jpg

File:Synodus 'ulae.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2009 at 16:47:50

•  Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Question is this a serious nomination? If yes, then I somehow don't get it...maybe some more explanation is needed. --AngMoKio (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you for your question, AngMoKio. This nomination is very serious. There's is a fish at the image. Please try to find it, and then maybe you will appreciate me finding it in a wild looking through my snorkel mask. Explanations? Well, you actually could see the eyes and a little bit of the head of the fish. Everything else is hiden below the sand, but looks like Tiago Fioreze did find the fish because he opposed the image based on the composition. I'd say this fish likes the "composition" very much :).--Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The photo composition is not interesting. On the contrary, it is rather confusing. Besides, there is a serious lack of sharpness, which is more accentuated at the photo corners. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much chromatic aberration. :( →Diti the penguin — 17:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you find the fish, Diti?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think so! But I presume it's been harder to see it because of the current image quality. Nice shoot though. :) →Diti the penguin — 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Diti. The fish is hard to see because it is mostly under the sand, and the eyes that are above the sand look as they are sand too. Let me asure you that the fish is hard to see not because of the image quality, but because this fish is really hard to see in the real life. When I was taking the pictures, I surely could not see the fish at the screen of my camera, and of course the camera had absolutely nothing to focus at. Anyway...It is rather not a nice, but an unusual shot, too unusual to keep it on Commons. That's why I nominated it for speedy. It was stupid of me to upload and to nominate the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose It's certainly a funny puzzle picture. Seek and ye shall find indeed: after a long way I did find the fish. But due to the indistinctness, the lack of sharpness and the unnatural colours, this can definitely not be a FP, and not even a QI. -- MJJR (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this image for sure cannot be QI. It is not quality image. It is "a bad picture (not so bad BTW) of a very difficult subject" which "is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject". That's why IMO it could have been FP, but of course this selection criteia is rarely, if ever applied here.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is totally out of focus

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Interesting picture, but however difficult to take, it can't really be classed as one of Wikimedia's best :-). If it was of something that could never be seen again (species now extinct ;-) then it might get some traction. Perhaps we should start up another page (to go with VI, QI, and FP) - "II" "Interesting images", that can include things like running chickens and sneaking seagulls too :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)