Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Black Moor: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Black Moor fish closeup: clarify |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
***Thanks for your comments and feedback. As you probably know, photos through glass are very difficult to shoot, and it is especially so when it comes to photos of aquaria (which accounts for the limited number of decent aquaria photos available). There is little possibility to control the light and fish (obviously) don't stay still or pose for you. I originally took this picture for documentary reasons because I could not find one that illustrated these animals to this detail. I do think this photo is of some documentary help. As for the background looking artificial, it is actually live plants in the aquarium. The photo was not post-processed, the plants are truly this bright green even out of water.[[User:Svampen|ﻯναოթ€ռ]] ([[User talk:Svampen|talk]]) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC) |
***Thanks for your comments and feedback. As you probably know, photos through glass are very difficult to shoot, and it is especially so when it comes to photos of aquaria (which accounts for the limited number of decent aquaria photos available). There is little possibility to control the light and fish (obviously) don't stay still or pose for you. I originally took this picture for documentary reasons because I could not find one that illustrated these animals to this detail. I do think this photo is of some documentary help. As for the background looking artificial, it is actually live plants in the aquarium. The photo was not post-processed, the plants are truly this bright green even out of water.[[User:Svampen|ﻯναოթ€ռ]] ([[User talk:Svampen|talk]]) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
****My comment on the background looking artificial was referring to it clearly looking like it was taken in an aquarium rather than in a 'natural' setting - I wasn't meaning to imply the plants looked plastic, etc. Similarly shots of animals tend to get opposed if they look like they're taken in a zoo - they can be taken there, they just shouldn't look like it :-). Yes, it is hard to shoot through glass, but that's what helps distinguish an FP. Check out some other fish FPs at [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish]], most of which are also taken in aquariums - you'll notice that generally the glass has been taken out as a factor, backgrounds tend to look more natural, and they don't suffer from the harsh flash lighting. I agree this is a good photo and good composition, but I don't think it's featured quality. You can still nominate if you wish, or alternatively you could try it at VP where the technical issues aren't so important. --[[User:Jjron|jjron]] ([[User talk:Jjron|talk]]) 08:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC) |
****My comment on the background looking artificial was referring to it clearly looking like it was taken in an aquarium rather than in a 'natural' setting - I wasn't meaning to imply the plants looked plastic, etc. Similarly shots of animals tend to get opposed if they look like they're taken in a zoo - they can be taken there, they just shouldn't look like it :-). Yes, it is hard to shoot through glass, but that's what helps distinguish an FP. Check out some other fish FPs at [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish]], most of which are also taken in aquariums - you'll notice that generally the glass has been taken out as a factor, backgrounds tend to look more natural, and they don't suffer from the harsh flash lighting. I agree this is a good photo and good composition, but I don't think it's featured quality. You can still nominate if you wish, or alternatively you could try it at VP where the technical issues aren't so important. --[[User:Jjron|jjron]] ([[User talk:Jjron|talk]]) 08:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
*****Thanks for sharing the link to the featured fish photos, that is definitely high quality material. I'll use it as a future reference to improve the quality of my pictures. [[User:Svampen|ﻯναოթ€ռ]] ([[User talk:Svampen|talk]]) 11:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
;Seconder: |
;Seconder: |
||
* |
* |
||
Revision as of 11:19, 9 September 2009
This photograph illustrates in a clear way the typical protruding eyes of this goldfish breed and other details of its anatomy rarely noticeable in other photos or even to the naked eye. It also shows an unusual point of view, giving an opportunity for a virtual face-to-face encounter with this alien-looking animal.
- Articles this image appears in
- Black Moor
- Creator
- ﻯναოթ€ռ
- Suggested by
- Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 09:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC).
This was orginal suggested by ﻯναოթ€ռ. It was place in the wrong plac so I moved it. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 09:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comments
I like this striking close up of the Black Moor fish. The picture is clear and in focus. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)- I dont think this would pass as an FP, I dont mind the composition but the size of the image as well as problems with shooting through glass means its not as good an image as could be taken --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, agree. It's quite a good shot, but even at this small size which just barely meets FPC requirements quality is not quite there - it's not bad quality, but it's not really good either. As tends to be the case with compacts the flash hasn't helped the attractiveness of the image/colouring. The setting also just looks rather artificial to me too, sometimes that is and sometimes that isn't an issue. --jjron (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments and feedback. As you probably know, photos through glass are very difficult to shoot, and it is especially so when it comes to photos of aquaria (which accounts for the limited number of decent aquaria photos available). There is little possibility to control the light and fish (obviously) don't stay still or pose for you. I originally took this picture for documentary reasons because I could not find one that illustrated these animals to this detail. I do think this photo is of some documentary help. As for the background looking artificial, it is actually live plants in the aquarium. The photo was not post-processed, the plants are truly this bright green even out of water.ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- My comment on the background looking artificial was referring to it clearly looking like it was taken in an aquarium rather than in a 'natural' setting - I wasn't meaning to imply the plants looked plastic, etc. Similarly shots of animals tend to get opposed if they look like they're taken in a zoo - they can be taken there, they just shouldn't look like it :-). Yes, it is hard to shoot through glass, but that's what helps distinguish an FP. Check out some other fish FPs at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish, most of which are also taken in aquariums - you'll notice that generally the glass has been taken out as a factor, backgrounds tend to look more natural, and they don't suffer from the harsh flash lighting. I agree this is a good photo and good composition, but I don't think it's featured quality. You can still nominate if you wish, or alternatively you could try it at VP where the technical issues aren't so important. --jjron (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing the link to the featured fish photos, that is definitely high quality material. I'll use it as a future reference to improve the quality of my pictures. ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- My comment on the background looking artificial was referring to it clearly looking like it was taken in an aquarium rather than in a 'natural' setting - I wasn't meaning to imply the plants looked plastic, etc. Similarly shots of animals tend to get opposed if they look like they're taken in a zoo - they can be taken there, they just shouldn't look like it :-). Yes, it is hard to shoot through glass, but that's what helps distinguish an FP. Check out some other fish FPs at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish, most of which are also taken in aquariums - you'll notice that generally the glass has been taken out as a factor, backgrounds tend to look more natural, and they don't suffer from the harsh flash lighting. I agree this is a good photo and good composition, but I don't think it's featured quality. You can still nominate if you wish, or alternatively you could try it at VP where the technical issues aren't so important. --jjron (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments and feedback. As you probably know, photos through glass are very difficult to shoot, and it is especially so when it comes to photos of aquaria (which accounts for the limited number of decent aquaria photos available). There is little possibility to control the light and fish (obviously) don't stay still or pose for you. I originally took this picture for documentary reasons because I could not find one that illustrated these animals to this detail. I do think this photo is of some documentary help. As for the background looking artificial, it is actually live plants in the aquarium. The photo was not post-processed, the plants are truly this bright green even out of water.ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, agree. It's quite a good shot, but even at this small size which just barely meets FPC requirements quality is not quite there - it's not bad quality, but it's not really good either. As tends to be the case with compacts the flash hasn't helped the attractiveness of the image/colouring. The setting also just looks rather artificial to me too, sometimes that is and sometimes that isn't an issue. --jjron (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Seconder
- Comments