Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blue Linckia Starfish

Blue Linkia Starfish

After reading WP:WIAFP I feel this picture meets every requirement, it is of high quality, large, and well done; It appears in Coral reef and Great Barrier Reef, and was created by Richard Ling.

Nominate and support. - Dark jedi requiem 14:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality isn't that great, bit dark too.--Andeh 16:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above - lots of jpg compression artifacts too. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I like it, but the angle is a bit weird. Also, artifacts galore. --Golbez 23:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Dark? On the contrary, the highlights are slightly blown. Underwater photos aren't easy to shoot, this almost qualifies for FP, thanks to the very unusual subject. I didn't know there were blue starfish, but now I do! BTW, there's a license conflict on the image page, both a copyright, and a GFDL. --Janke | Talk 05:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can highlights be "slightly" blown? Stevage 11:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually there are varying degrees of blown, since you asked. There is blown on all three colour channels (ie white) and then there is blown in just one or two colour channels (which results in a rather flat textured blue/red/green highlight. Both are blown, but the white one is going to be more obvious and annoying). I assume Janke meant that parts of the highlights were blown. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I would love to support it and I totally disagree with Andy that it is dark, but unfortunately there are a lot of artefacts in the image which make its focus fuzzy at best.- Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A 1600 x 1200 with this much detail at 210kB is going to run into compression problems. Is it possible for the photographer to upload a less compressed version? I think it would attract a fair bit of support. Also, as per Janke, have concerns with that copyright conflict. --jjron 09:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's an interesting photo, however, and it might just be me, but the photo seems completely out focus. Looks light someone tried to sharpen it. --Mad Max 09:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even at reduced size, some problems are evident; at 100% they are pronounced. I wish we could have the original image, as it came out of the camera. It might be possible to make something more suitable out of it. --moondigger 17:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WOW! Vibrant colors and great angle- I love this picture! And it is unique from the rest being underwater and everything/ I love the blue starfish! Good job. tiger35

Above user "tiger35" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the image lightened and sharpened? Dark jedi requiem 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue Linckia Starfish-2-.jpg

Sharpened, lightned.

Support. I support edit 2 and 1, but I think the lightened version in edit 2 brings out the colors.

fpwannabe

user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Above user "fpwannabe" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original image now uploaded. I generally avoided this because I cringe at the idea of 700+kB images on every imaginable topic. I usually reduce the resolution and aim for ~100k, though this one clearly does not compress well. Richard Ling

Not promoted --Fir0002 01:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]