Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xenophora pallidula 01.jpg

File:Xenophora pallidula 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2011 at 19:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Xenophora pallidula 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xenophora pallidula 01.jpg

A shell collector photographed by a shell collector. Not only humans collect shells!

•  Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Snaevar (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

* Support Very interesting --91.13.253.246 09:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Please log in to vote.--Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support More than interesting ! Questions are : "How" and "Why" does this shell collect shells... Fascinating ! --Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--shizhao (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Steven Walling 17:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good, but a file too heavy is really necessary? --Citron (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Technology changes very quickly, the display problem will be solved soon. This type of image can be cut to take only certain views without quality loss. It's a big job --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't understand these support votes. The colors are off and the highlights are blown. W.S. 08:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment What do you mean by "the colours are off"? It's a pure white, translucent shell with attached white shells. Which colours do do you expect in this case, where should they come from? I'd be glad if you would visit me to check the colours of the original and to compare them with the photo. --Llez (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• I mean that the color is poor (flash light?) and the highlights are blown. Try a different way of lighting your subject. I'm sure you can do better. (examples: [1], [2], [3], and [4]). W.S. 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please review voting instructions: Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe you mean: "Only give supporting votes as we don't like criticism here"? Before biting all my opposes, read the comments and note that Llez has done better in the past so with his proven track record he knows he can. W.S. 08:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• You can make your point without attacking other users. If you cannot or will not follow explicit instructions for reviewing the images nominated here, please do not participate. Your comments help to set the tone for this discussion. Please try to set a positive example. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Don't attack me, Walter, all my opposes are valid, sound and not ad hominem. Do you really want to oppress all opposition? W.S. 06:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• You used the words, "I'm sure you can do better" above. I reminded you that COM:FPC voting instructions explicitly say "Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: 'You can do better' and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image". Then you repeated your criticism of the author/nominator using different words. You may oppose an image and the criteria include many valid reasons for doing so. But, "I'm sure you can do better" is not one. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment Thank you all for this interesting discussion, but lets come back to the colours. I said, that the shell is translucent. Most of the pictures cited above are made with white background or at least with a bright background. No wonder, if the shell then seems to be pure white or creamy. I photographed my shell with a black background, and this black is shining through the thin, translucent parts of the shell. So one can demonstrate, how thin the shell is in reality. Only thickened, not translucent parts of the shell are pure white. I really tried to do my best, to show the fragility of the shell.

--Llez (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Even that being as it is (I'd call it an unfortunate choice of background in this case), it doesn't account for the blown highlights. And considering the you know you can do better-remark: consider it as a compliment for your previous FP's. It was of course not an attack as Mr. Siegmund would love to see it. W.S. 12:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment -- Nicely made but I agree that some highlights are blown. Sting (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support: Striking and technically proficient. TFCforever (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting subject, makes me want to learn more. Jon C (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Miguel Bugallo 08:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals