Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scorpion under Blacklight
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Scorpion under blacklight
- Reason
- It's something different on creepy-crawlies - educational, but different.
- Articles this image appears in
- Scorpion, black light
- Creator
- Jonbeebe
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose the back half of the scorpion is blurry. SpencerT♦C 00:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't mind that the body is out of focus, this isn't a full body shot after all, the emphasis is on the front half. Certainly interesting. Capital photographer (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Deliciously creepy image, but I find the very shallow depth-of-field seriously distracting. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Snapshot quality. The body is out of focus, and it'd be a poor representation of a scorpion. ¢rassic! (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you would illustrate this very significant property of the scorpion carapace in any other way. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose inadequate DOF. Mfield (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why? The point of this shot isn't to provide an encyclopedic full view of the body, but rather to illustrate this unique effect. Given the focus of the image, I don't see the DOF as a problem. If it were full colour and intended to illustrate the creature rather than this effect, then it would be an issue. Capital photographer (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why? Because choosing the right aperture (and a tripod if necessary) would have made the picture much better, and this is FP and it is an easy to repeat image that should be captured properly. Mfield (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's overly simplistic to say everything must be in focus. The inclusion of the body would not add anything significant and the shallow DOF enhances the viewers focus. Capital photographer (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that the shallow DOF was a deliberate effect. I stand by the fact that the shot would look better if the photographer had chosen the correct aperture. Having it all in focus would only improve it and make it more detailed and interesting. Mfield (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- But what is the "correct" aperture and would having the body in focus add anything? Artistic difference I guess. Capital photographer (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about art - this is WP and this is supposed to be an image that is demonstrating a scientific phenomenon. The correct aperture would be the one that provides sufficient DOF to cover the entire subject. I'm am not that interested in going and looking at the EXIF to work it out, but it looks like the photographer either chose a wide aperture to get a high enough shutter speed not to need a tripod, or simply didn't think at all and had it wide open in aperture priority or program mode. Mfield (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Artistic as in composition, not as in art work. In other words, a difference in desired composition. The fact remains, the photograph is illustrating the effect of black light on a creature. It succeeds at this. Would having the body (what little is visible from this angle) illustrate the effect any better? No. You don't see the BBC Natural History unit filming every animal in their docos side on and entirely in focus,but rather using what ever composition is effective in showing what they want to show. Capital photographer (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about art - this is WP and this is supposed to be an image that is demonstrating a scientific phenomenon. The correct aperture would be the one that provides sufficient DOF to cover the entire subject. I'm am not that interested in going and looking at the EXIF to work it out, but it looks like the photographer either chose a wide aperture to get a high enough shutter speed not to need a tripod, or simply didn't think at all and had it wide open in aperture priority or program mode. Mfield (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- But what is the "correct" aperture and would having the body in focus add anything? Artistic difference I guess. Capital photographer (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that the shallow DOF was a deliberate effect. I stand by the fact that the shot would look better if the photographer had chosen the correct aperture. Having it all in focus would only improve it and make it more detailed and interesting. Mfield (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's overly simplistic to say everything must be in focus. The inclusion of the body would not add anything significant and the shallow DOF enhances the viewers focus. Capital photographer (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why? Because choosing the right aperture (and a tripod if necessary) would have made the picture much better, and this is FP and it is an easy to repeat image that should be captured properly. Mfield (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why? The point of this shot isn't to provide an encyclopedic full view of the body, but rather to illustrate this unique effect. Given the focus of the image, I don't see the DOF as a problem. If it were full colour and intended to illustrate the creature rather than this effect, then it would be an issue. Capital photographer (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support-A great image, but the back half of the body is out of focus as spencer said. ~Meldshal42 01:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't understand how this is encyclopedic. Lots of things glow under black lights. I'm surprised this photo has not been removed from Scorpion. Mangostar (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Within arachnids, and probably crustaceans, the glowing of the carapace is a unique property of scorpions. There may be individual species in other taxonomic groups that have acquired similar properties much later (I'm just guessing that there are, insects are very diverse and it would be surprising if you didn't find one or two species who also do this), BUT all scorpions do this, and it's relevant to humans because you can use a blacklight to help you avoid stepping on them in the night, or to find them if you're collecting (but they don't taste that great). It's also interesting because no adaptive reason is known for this property.87.165.221.143 (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
