Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:White shark.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Great white shark

A great white shark at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico, August 2006. Animal estimated at 11-12 feet in length, age unknown.
A great white shark at Isla Guadalupe, Mexico, August 2006. Animal estimated at 11-12 feet in length, age unknown.
Edit without some distracting spots.
Edit without some distracting spots.
Another possible edit, without the tracker on the base of the dorsal fin.
Another possible edit, without the tracker on the base of the dorsal fin.
Reason
As good an image as I've seen of a great white. In focus, in frame, and with a bit of action and detail.
Articles this image appears in
Great white shark, Shark attack, Fish, Portal:Sharks
Creator
Pterantula
Later comment, support all three version, in order I prefere 2 over 1 over 3. Stefan 05:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per H, the shark is smallish but otherwise impeckable. There also seem to be a few distracting blown pixels near the splah; there are only a handful so they can be adjusted by hand.--HereToHelp 23:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I assume this is a somewhat difficult shot to obtain, but I feel like a better one could be found. The school of fish below the shark is very distracting for me, as is the splash on the right side of the image. The entire rear half of the shark is out of focus (though perhaps that's because its tail was moving at the time the picture was taken). I can't figure out if those spots (near the top of the picture, towards the middle) are specks of dust on the lens, or if they're something else (they don't look like bubbles to me). Also, as H noted, the image isn't very large. —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 00:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • As for the tail to be out of focus, it is not (out of focus that is), my guess is that it is particles in the water, you must understand that you can not get the same clarity in underwater shots as when you take pictures in the air, water is very dense and it has lots of things floating in it, if you have 20 meters visibility underwater it is very good, you can not expect a picture underwater to be like a picture on land, if you had fog making you see 20 meters on land all pictures would look lousy and you would just wait for the next day and take a clear picture, underwater thsi is always the case, this picture seams to be taken in good conditions, I would guess that the visibility is even better than 20 meters, but still you will have reduced clarity even in very short distances, compare the fish that is close with the fish that is far away, they are not clear either, but if that is the criteria for features pictures it would be very hard to get underwater pictures passed. See image:Hawaii_turtle_2.JPG which recently passed, it have the same isse but much more (remember this shark is 3+ meters, turtle estimated to 50+cm) but still the end of the turtle starts to look a bit blurred. Stefan 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The spots on the top I think is backscatter, this happens when you have partciles in the water and uses a flash, my guess is that this is actually bubbles, quite close to the lens reflecting the flash light, it is hard to avoid, also a fact of life in underwater photography, can be made less by placing the flash further from the camera but sometimes with lots of particles it just does not help enough, not sure in this case, but the water looks to have lots of buibbles in it. Stefan 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose sorry, but there are just too many distracting elements that do not bring much more encyclopedic value. Circeus 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • support dramatic! school of fish and splash I find not distracting - they show they prey (and prey behavior) and the splash shows the energy exerted by the shark respectively. Debivort 05:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I'm not distracted by the school or the splash either, and the detail on the shark is quite nice. Shame it's so small, though, it'd make a great wallpaper otherwise. --Herald Alberich 07:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • More Support for Edit 1 than for the original. --Herald Alberich 06:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Though I would've preferred not to have the splash in the background, this is a fine image. The fish show the shark is in his natural habitat, and it's crisp and in focus. (There's such a thing as a focus plane. You can't have something in the background as clear as something in the foreground especially if it extends several feet and is subject to underwater light scatter). - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- stuns me, interests me, grabs my enthusiasm. Seems to be of good quality. Subject fairly clearly defined. Thats what a FP is, isn't it? Anonymous Dissident Utter 10:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Some technical flaws, and unfortunately small, but I don't think I've ever seen a shark image this well-lit and well-composed before. --TotoBaggins 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Mbz1 16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Strong Support per above Jellocube27 17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Edit one, original as a compromise only. The encyclopedic value this shot overwhelms the already mentioned techincal imperfections, as the encyclopedic of the recent shots of the sea turtle and whale shark did not. I am somewhat concerned about the encyclopedic value of whatever that is at the base of the dorsal fin, but it looks so much like an individual imperfection (scar, whatever) that I think the encyclopedic value is preserved. Enuja 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC) I oppose edit two, with the tracking tag and part of the dorsal fin scarring removed. That does detract from the reality of the image. Removing the unfocused spots (and leaving lots of bubbles and other real things) just makes the picture better and doesn't damage its encyclopedic value. Enuja 02:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • (the thing at the base of the dorsal fin is a research tracking tag, age unknown.) - pterantula, 13 June 2007
  • Support; agree that the picture overcomes any technical deficiencies. --Golbez 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Nice composition. Shows the shark in its natural habitat without depicting it as the typical "killing and eating machine." A great picture, especially considering that the photographer was in the water with the shark at the time! --Vhadsell 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful image and a novel subject. TimVickers 02:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Strongest support for second image, although all three are great. TimVickers 18:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Just big enough; beautiful sharpness, composition, colors, and lighting; great WOW value; one of the best pictures I've seen of this fish; minor distractions can't stand against all the positive things about this picture. Excellent! Althepal 03:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Support edit 1 While I think that the original is worthy of FP, the edit removes a negative element (the spots or bubbles) from the picture and should replace the first. Althepal 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support perfect quality picture.--Svetovid 08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps the featured picture candidate should be replaced with the edited version. Althepal 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Call me visually insensative, but I actually cant see the difference between the original picture and the edited one. Can you pint out to me the actual differences? Anonymous Dissident Utter 08:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Look at the white bubble above the fin of the shark, in the middle top of the picture, and 5-10 other simmilar bubbles. Stefan 10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That's right, Stefan. If you use a browser that allows tabs (Firefox, IE7, and many others), you can also open the two versions in two different tabs and switch back and forth between them so the pictures are in the same place. Then you will for sure notice the difference. Althepal 17:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (Am I allowed to comment on my own work?...) I greatly appreciate and value the scrutiny given here; if I might just comment that minor artifacts (such as the dome bubbles, particles in the water, shoals of other animals, etc.) represent the true, natural conditions and circumstances of the image subject; this is not an idealized piece of "art" in a vacuum, and I believe it should be viewed in the greater context of its surroundings, "real-world", as it were. (But that's just me...) Pterantula 18:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I see what you are saying, but if it takes away from the main subject which we need to focus on, maybe it wouldn't be so horrible to modify it just a little. BTW: If there is an artificial tracking tag, maybe even that should be removed to better show what the sharks really look like? Althepal 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I made this edit. I know it is deviating from what "really happened," but we have to decide if it's a more "encyclopedic" depiction or not. Althepal 18:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Pterantula, are you sure the bubbles and other stuff I removed in the first edit are simply not specks of something on the camera lens? Althepal 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Should not answer for others, but compare [1] and [2] in a tabbed browser and you can see that there are different 'artifacts' in each picture. (which should not happen if it was artifacts from the camera setup) Since I did not take the pictures i'm only guessing, but it looks to me that these are taken just a few seconds after each other, so no time to 'clean' the lens (which you can not do under water anyway), also look at some of the other pictures on the flicker account, and see that this guy knows how to take pictures, compare the deeper pictures [3]which have less bubbles, but bubbles do happen underwater especially close to the surface and there is not much to do about them. Stefan 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support - I strongly support the original, or the first edit without the spots (with preference probably to the edit), but i feel that the tracker is important in showing that these fish are being monitored. Also the fish are not distracting as it shows the animal in its natural conditions, and in no way subtract from encyclopedic value. Chris_huhtalk 12:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - The picture does follow all of the requirements for a featured picture and depicts the Great White's entire body and niche. Taipan198 14:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Great picture of a Great White. Certainly FP material in my book. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support first edit; would give weak support for original. The spots were a bit distracting and removing them added to the shot without taking anything away; I would oppose the second edit with the tracker removed. Matt Deres 22:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • (the original image is already a JPG, so all these additional edits would conceivably be recompressing, thus reducing the quality overall...? Just a thought.) Pterantula 02:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I saved using 100% jpeg quality each time. When viewed at full size and switching between the pictures, you cannot notice extra jpeg artifacts. Althepal 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Great shot. Ba'Gamnan | Talk 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Super Sonic Support!! My special support for GREAT pics like this!! The reflection of the lights on the shark are just a tad distracting, but it is definitely bearable because at the same time, it looks cool, like Sonic!! The fish are not a distraction either because they actually serve as a great scale in how big the shark is. THe splash is trivial; it's in the corner, for crying out loud!! This definitely would be a COOL FP! --Sonic is Cool!! 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:White shark.jpg --Raven4x4x 04:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


        • THANK YOU, everyone who took a look and offered their thoughts. I really, really appreciate the feedback. Cheers! Pterantula 07:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)