Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Phenotypic variation

Phenotypic variation

I feel this is an aesthetic image that shows the diversity of form capable within a single species, a concept that is critical for evolution by natural selection. Plus, shells are pretty. The image appears in the Donax and phenotype articles. Shells collected, imaged and uploaded by me user:debivort.

Nominate and support. - Debivort 02:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I really like the idea and it has great encyclopedic value, but there's too much noise in the picture for me to support. I may change my vote as input from other users comes in. --Tewy 04:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah this is kind of interesting. I assume you are referring to the background. What looks like noise is actually texture on the surface I photographed them on (anodized aluminum). I'll make an alternative version in which the appearance of noise is reduced. Debivort 04:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I'd still like to see a little more noise reduction in the background. NauticaShades^(talk) 07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Good illustration of phenotypes. Yes, the original background "grain" is very distracting. The edit is better in that respect, but still suffers from there being too many shells, many look almost identical (especially in thumb size). I think a better image would contain only a few, say, four to six, very different shells, seen in much greater detail. I'd like to compare the striations and ruffled edges really close up! So, since you could do better, I give a No Go on this one... --Janke | Talk 08:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you think if there were the same number, but the image was much larger, i.e. 3x larger on each axis? or does your concern about too many shells also arise in the thumbnail? Debivort 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not bad, could be better per Janke. I'd say about ten shells would be good, six are too few (IMHO). | AndonicO 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All 20 types are pretty different. One possibility is treating a new version as a panorama - taking hardcore macro images and then stitching them together. Matching the backgrounds would become a problem though, and one might have to just set it to white, and make the thing more of an illustration. Debivort 18:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the topic but for some reason the picture is meh. Is it just me or does it seem like its taken at a slight angle? Also can the lighting used be improved? there are reflectiosn on some of the shells. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doubt much can be done about the reflections. The shells are shiny, and I only have point sources. Doesn't seem like it's worth sinking much effort into a re-shoot. Does anyone think otherwise? Debivort
  - What are you using for lighting? Simple things like a bedsheet can be used to change lighting. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Subject is very nice and has good encyclopedic value, but the photo has problems. White background distracts from the subject. Something dark and diffuse would be better. Lighting is messed up by highlights: a diffuse source would probably help. Also, since there are no actual paired shells, don't present them arranged in pairs. If you could do a less slanted, more uniform grid that would be good. I encourage you to try again. Dgies 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They are paired - inside and outside of same individual Debivort 22:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I couldn't see that the left ones were concave. Dgies 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think it would be worth trying to recreate this with imrpovements, mabye try something more like this (one half of the shell/black background?).--Peta 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]