Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caecum vitreum 01.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Caecum vitreum 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 03:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A shell of Caecum vitreum from Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain;
Actually I've that lens (and in that cat there are a few QIs of mine) but so far I just used it outdoors, which is really hard. I'll try to take some studio images of tiny objects with my 5DS R, I didn't try that yet. Poco2 18:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info For the shell photos I normally use a 60mm Tamron Macro objective, which is comparable to the Canon lens mentioned above. This objective is useful for objects (e.g. shells) down to 6 mm (of course I made this photo with the 60mm Macro). All objects, which are smaller can't be photographed picture-filling any more, for you can't go closer to the object. This means, the smaller the object, the smaller is the object on the photo and the more empty space you have (and the more quality loss you have). Therefore I use for objects smaller than 6 mm not a normal camera with macro lens but an UCMOS 14000KPA camera (4096 x 3288 px) in combination with a microscope or a binocular mircoscope respectively, which allows picture filling photos of objects from 6 mm down to 10 μm (!), an object size, which is impossible to photograph with a normal macro lens. All my photos of shells, of which the size is below 7 mm, are made with the UCMOS 14000KPA. --Llez (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but shall we create the new category "condom-shaped objects", considering this will be the only file in this sub-cat, and will probably remain as it for quite a while ? This is not a condom, but this is not a "condom in art" neither, nor any other existing category-related file. If created, "Condoms in nature" would sound strange . Also, "Condoms" seems very general here, and all the pictures of condoms are more in this sub-Category:Condoms_by_sex (male and female), that's why I think "Condoms" is a good choice for now. But any better suggestion ? welcome -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need to have categories for everything that looks like something else. Basic shapes are enough. We also don't need to put every object that might look like something into a category for that, otherwise you would have to put every elongated object, obelisk or structure into Category:Penis-shaped objects. --Cart (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally disagree. What makes this picture special, in my opinion, is that it looks like a condom, more than a shell ! Kind of prehistoric condom at first sight :-) The resemblance is amazing, and the illusion is so strong that the author mentionned it straight at the top of their nomination :"No, it is NOT what you think it is on the first sight ! ". Exactly the same impression I had when I discovered this shape of a shell : it clearly looks like a male contraceptive. Not only an elongated shape that would make it approximately similar, but also something hollow on the base with a roll aspect, and the most caracteristic detail, a kind of reservoir on the top ! That's just awesome for a coincidence. This definitely creates a good pareidolia, that means a "psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus being perceived as significant". Sorry but I can't look at this shell without thinking to a condom (not my fault it's a sexual-related subject), as I can't look at this rock without thinking to an elephant. Same degree of proximity, and that's perfectly normal to read "elephant" in the description of this file. Would be ridiculous to remove the appropriate category and say "Well, it's just a saltwork formation in a desert in reality, not an elephant" ! In Thailand, there is a famous site in Koh Samui with two rocks displaying a phallus and a vulva. This site attracts a lot of visitors every day and Wikimedia has a Category:Hin_Ta_Hin_Yai which is of course included in the categories Phallic symbols and Vulva symbols. That's the logics. Concerning the Category:Penis-shaped_objects, it's perfectly legitimate to find inside these knockers, but what would be worth the picture without mentionning this particular aspect of the metallic object ? Insignificant. I've uploaded a stain on Commons a few years ago File:Pareidolia_stain_on_wall_as_map_of_France.jpg and this work would lose absolutely all its content if the illusion of the map of France was not mention anywhere on the file. We would just see this spot like another ordinary stain, and above all quite a bad photo ! I'm not saying Llez's shell is bad (the only reason I don't support the nomination is because I find the quality a bit too low, however the picture is really great, and fortunately we also have great pictures on Commons which are not necessarily featured). Just what makes this photo awesome, in my opinion, apart from the fact it is a very small object, it is that it looks like a condom, and this is exceptional, yes. The Category:Penis-shaped_objects would fit approximately, and Condoms too, but this last one is more precize in my opinion. Most of the examples of pareidolias on Google are heads and faces with eyes and mouth. When they're not fakes, such objects resembling to other objects are really very rare. Here we're confused by the reality and need to look at twice ! This file is then an excellent example of this kind of illusion, and should thus be promoted as such without ambiguity. It doesn't spoil the shell characteristics, it just brings an extra value, which may attracts more views to this tiny specimen among its huge collection. This shell definitely generates a pareidolia, and as part of this phenomenon, which object does it evoke ? A condom. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! And here I thought it was a dildo, with a bunny-ear-tickler on top and a switch for the vibrator at the bottom. I guess men and women are used to using different things and we see things differently. I think you have become a bit fixated with this. --Cart (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Caecum_vitreum_01.jpg&oldid=298315220"