Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Loligo vulgaris.jpg

Image:Loligo vulgaris.jpg - not featured

•  Info created and uploaded by Lycaon — nominated by Tone
•  Support Tone 13:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Support  Neutral really nice no more resolution? --Luc Viatour 14:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

oh yes :-) Lycaon 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Oppose appears to be in an unnatural position Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

it is, it was meant as a taxonomical illustration. Lycaon 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

* Neutral - Low Res. but Photo is nice -Andreas.Didion 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

* Neutral Really nice picture, but lowres. I'll support if it would be a higher res. --Leclerc 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Support, as the pic was replaced with hi-res one .... --Leclerc 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Support - Another Version, now is a High Res. /Andreas.Didion 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Picture of animal corpse should not any more be necessary today. Simply ugly. Salmo 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree: Would rather see live specimen Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 04:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Support Romary 15:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent detail, surely this is valuable. --KenWalker 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Salmo and Žena Dhark Declic 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Support / tsca @ 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just a lab shot, like many others. --Tomascastelazo 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Neutrality 18:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose - ditto to Salmo - MPF 21:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral The fact that it's not in it's natural environment is totally irrelevant (it not dead btw), we 're judging a photograph here, not a philosophy. Quality is imo not high enough due to limits of the camera used. I'll try to shoot a new one in three weeks time... Lycaon 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment Lycaon What then are the criteria then for FP? Your voting record oppose/support fluctuates and in cases is contradictory, seems more like the result of personal taste and preference than objective evaluation based on long established photographic convention. Environment is totally relevant, if you judge photographic merit. Heck, I see people here opposing pictures for lack of a name... regardless of the image itself! Maybe it is time to establish serious, objective criteria free of personal bias. Just like science. --Tomascastelazo 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• @Tomascastelazo Criteria I use to oppose are: wrong license, low res (under 1 Mpx), obvious bad photography (exposure, DOF, sharpness), obvious bad composition (heavy tilt, bad crop) and missing or wrong info (incorrect or missing name). Support if oppose criteria are not met +/- points for rarity. Quite objective imo.
• @Declic I did not nominate this picture because I know its faults (being the photographer) and although hi res, the quality is not sufficient, yet it got extra point for rarity in my book ;-) Hi res is important. 640x480 pictures are of very little value, while analog images can be scanned with fairly cheap scanners to yield accurate hi res renditions of the original. B.T.W., the picture was not taken in a lab but outside on a ship (RV Belgica) at 6 Beaufort. ;-o
• We could use a scoring card system, where you assign a number (e.g. from 0 to 5) to several criteria. Summation of the scores will then tell you whether the image is feature or not. Similar systems are widely used in ecological assessments. Lycaon 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• In this case much of photographs will be disqualified because they were taken at one time or the numerical cameras did not exist. I think "hi res quality" should be considered only lastly. A good camera does not make necessarily a good photograph. Declic 01:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• @TheBernFiles The majority of serious contests of animal photographs disqualify the photographs which are not taken in natural environments. The labs photograph is relevant for taxonomic goal but without more and certainly not for FC. Salmo 20:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Support incredibly great taxonomic image, perfect specimen too. And we are judging photo tecnique merit, not philosophical or ethic question. Anyway, millions of that are caught everyday as human food, so can't see what's wrong if you take a photo of one of them before? (moreover, it is alive)--Jollyroger 15:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Agree with Jollyroger. --Olei 22:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Support. Good illustrative value, so what if it's dead. TheBernFiles 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Tbc 08:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose I also prefer pictures of living animals (unless there is a special reason, why the should be dead), but the critical point for my opposition is the missing environment. Roger McLassus 10:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Agree --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 00:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

12 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)