Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Flame angelfish
Flame angelfish[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2012 at 23:25:21 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- Sharp image, showcasing the details of this nice species
- Articles in which this image appears
- Flame angelfish
- FP category for this image
- Animals/Fish
- Creator
- Andreas März
- Support as nominator --Brandmeistertalk 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support the fish looks unbelievably bright in this photo but looking at other Internet pics it looks like this is realistic. Pine✉ 19:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support good image, good EV. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 22:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: Red channel is completely blown on large areas of the fish. Julia\talk 15:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Julia. The red is rather prominent. Dusty777 16:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, I've looked at other pictures of this fish on the internet and they all show this fish to be an amazingly bright orange. I don't think this photograph is unrealistic. Pine✉ 21:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Dusty meant, but my oppose is based on a technical shortcoming of the photograph. I agree that the colour is probably realistic, but the execution here is poor because the red channel is blown. The result is a severe loss of detail, such that the scales, which should be crisply visible, are smudged and fuzzy or in some areas even absent. There are several ways you can check for this technical aspect yourself in an image editing program, but the histogram is the easiest starting point. Julia\talk 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the image could show the scales in more detail like the photo at http://showyourfishes.com/flame_angelfish/ but I'm not sure the problems are bad enough here that I'd want to oppose. Pine✉ 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Dusty meant, but my oppose is based on a technical shortcoming of the photograph. I agree that the colour is probably realistic, but the execution here is poor because the red channel is blown. The result is a severe loss of detail, such that the scales, which should be crisply visible, are smudged and fuzzy or in some areas even absent. There are several ways you can check for this technical aspect yourself in an image editing program, but the histogram is the easiest starting point. Julia\talk 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, I've looked at other pictures of this fish on the internet and they all show this fish to be an amazingly bright orange. I don't think this photograph is unrealistic. Pine✉ 21:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Julia Mediran talk|contribs 09:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)