Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Banded cleaner shrimp

Banded cleaner shrimp

 * Reason:I have received some nice comments about this picture, and it shows the shrimp in its natural habitat.
 * Articles this image appears in:Stenopus hispidus
 * Creator:Laban712
 * Nominator: Laban712


 * Support &mdash; Laban712 09:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's shot in somebodies intestines :-). Nice quality apart from the low DOF. But the main problem I see is that a full frontal shot of that critter makes it hard to guess its structure. What's the head, where are the legs and antennae attached. It's just a bit confusing. --Dschwen 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Dschwen makes good points, but I fault more towards aesthetics in my judgments. I let others haggle over encyclopedic value and whatnot.  I love the background lighting and the vignette effect.  Focus on most of the critter is good.  He even seems to glow a bit.  I personally prefer a shallow depth of field in many cases for the sake of setting the subject apart from the foreground and/or background … which this photo does very nicely, yet still gives us a sense of placement in the environment.  In fact, the DOF as it stands makes this photo all the better since, as Dschwen mentions, it is difficult to define the body parts of the shrimp from this angle.  Since he is IN focus (most of him) and the rest of the image is OUT of focus, his body stands out and thus makes for a good portrait photo.-- Mactographer 11:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Subject is interesting and I'm willing to give a little leeway for poor DOF, but so much of the subject is out of focus it distracts my attention and makes me think the real subject is the intestine-like tube. Also hard to make out the animal's body plan. &mdash;Dgiest c 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, mactographer brings up good points --⁪froth T C  20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support An incredible picture with great encyclopedic value. In this case, I think the minor defects can be overlooked.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  20:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support well I can't say what has already been said. &mdash; Arjun 05:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The focus is not up to FP standards - Adrian Pingstone 11:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sort of looks like the background was out of some text book that was pasted in behind the shrimp. I think the angle is all wrong for the shrimp itself as well. Terri G 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well, I can agree that the picture has a somewhat surreal effect, but it's not altered (except for color correction which is always necessary for UW shots). I shot it hovering over the opening of the cylindrical sponge, so the shrimp was actually looking up at me. It's shot at 15 meters depth and in a pretty strong current, so I was pretty amazed when I saw how well the focus turned out. Then again, it is macro DOF, but I sort of like the effect.--Laban712 16:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked out the listing at:Stenopus hispidus and found that Stemonitis (a Wiki admin and biologist) decided to move this photo to the taxobox as the signature photo for this listing. Seems like a ringing endorsement of the encyclopedic value of this photo to me. -- Mactographer 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, I cannot quite understand that move to the taxobox. This pic Stenopus hispidus (high res).jpg seems better suited to me for that particular purpose. As it shows the body plan (yeah, that's the word I was looking for). Anyway, the nominated pic still is aesthetically way more pleasing. --Dschwen 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * more... I'll agree,Stenopus hispidus (high res).jpg...seems more definitive for IDing the body parts. But I guess even biologists have aesthetic appreciation. -- Mactographer 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with above, although it would be nice if more of the nominated image was in focus. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-01-05 21:24Z
 * Musing: Brian -- So are we to associate the quality of your opinion with the "scents" you've provided???? [[Image:Smiley head happy.svg|18px]] --Mactographer 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose...back to the picture (although I was considering envelope pictures for my two "sents"), I don't like it. The focus isn't up to par as per Adrian, but aside from that I think it's a truly ugly image. It looks like the cancer-infected inside of an ear...the background is simply too distracting. --Iriseyes 23:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It has no yuck factor for me. If the area is less disgusting than it looks, the image caption could mention it. --Kizor 09:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose It's just not that appealing and the bottom left corner seems a little blurier than the rest of the picture. It's okay but I don't think it is the best. 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I certainly acknowledge everyone's right to think that the background is weird-looking, ugly, intestine-looking or whatever. I just want to state that 1. Cleaner shrimps live on or in corals/sponges. 2. This shrimp, at the time pictured, lived inside a sponge and thus is representative of cleaner shrimps. 3. What you're seeing in the image is what a fish coming in to have its body cleansed would see. This makes it encyclopedic in my book. I agree that it does not show the shrimp's behind very well, and that probably the other pic is better suited in the taxobox (bodyplan etc.). The nominated pic shows the shrimp in its natural habitat, preparing to do what it does for a living.--Laban712 12:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Yep, that convinced me. We already have a picture showing the body plan and this picture has its own merits. Though for a strong support I'd have preferred a slightly different angle on the shimp. --Dschwen 12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per Mactographer's comments. Also, I don't find anything wrong with the background. --Aqua 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 07:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)