Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Common clam worm

Common clam worm
Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2010 at 12:24:09 (UTC)
 * Reason:Not sure how well this will go down, but I thought I'd give it a shot. Nice shot of a subject a little underrepresented at FPC (would be only our first/second annalid FP, depending on how my other nom goes) with clear EV in all three articles. Already featured on Commons.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Common clam worm, Epitoky, Nereididae
 * FP category for this image:Animals/Others
 * Creator:Hans Hillewaert


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Original One quick glance and it is clear this picture was taken in sunlight. But it doesn’t look sunny; the picture looks too dark. I was going to post a comment along the lines of “why not brighten this some?” Anticipating that the answer would be “Because it would blow out the gamma zeta channel from Zurg,” I looked at the histogram and can indeed see that any more brightening would blow out the red channel.   I am at a loss for what, technology-wise, is going on here with digital cameras and Photoshop and what all else is in the digital-magic path, but the end result is that this picture looks like it’s 8:30 PM and it’s time to turn on the porch light if one wants to keep on mowing the lawn. Greg L (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you considered that it wasn't taken in sunlight? It's more likely to have been taken in a lab or something similar IMO as the composition looks very controlled. Also, I haven't looked at the histogram myself but it doesn't always tell the full story. It's possible that it was underexposed in order to avoid clipping in the red channel, in which case it may well look darker than you'd expect. It might be possible to adjust things without adversely affecting the technicals but I can't say for certain right now as I haven't looked at it in detail. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very possible it's a lab shot, the author is a marine biologist. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if a lab shot, it still looks too dark to me. Greg L (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent composition and control of DOF. Possibly slightly warm colour balance though based on the colour of the specular highlights and fleshy bits. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Diliff Gazhiley (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - If you guys decide the coloring is accurate. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing: Whichever is determined to be more accurate. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  19:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Would a colour balance edit like the one on the right be more appropriate? I have increased the range of saturations present in the image with the result of a lower saturation background. - Zephyris Talk 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that looks way better. Good job... J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support “Colour balance edit” and probably any other edit along these lines that brightens it up. The less-saturated oranges also seems like it is more representative of what I suspect a clam worm looks like. The original version looked like an explosion at the Disney animation studio. Greg L (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And where do you get your suspicion? Is there any scientific merit to it? Have you ever seen a clam worm? The photographer is a biologist afaik, shouldn't we be consulting him rather than acting on suspicion alone. Do you think it is a good idea to upload a speculative edit which might only confuse users? --Dschwen 19:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.: this is also directed at Zephyris, who uploaded the edit. --Dschwen 20:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do I get my suspicion? I think it abundantly (perfectly) clear from what I wrote (seems like it is more representative of what I suspect a clam worm looks like) that it was based simply on intuition (that’s pretty much what “seems” and “suspect” means, you know). It is exceedingly evident it had zero “scientific merit” to it. Holy smokes you bring a combative tone to this place. In the below F-15 shot of the Space Shuttle picture, I gave you a straightforward compliment and you immediately took it as an insult and a personal attack (i cannot let your insinuation stand). If you keep up with this combative nature, I’ll just completely ignore you from hereon. So perhaps you might turn down the “righteous indignation” dial on your Offense-O-Meter. Sheesh! Besides, it appears from the links raeky provided, like {2}, my intuition was right in this case and the edit is much closer to reality; you can tell just by looking at the sand in the original that the color was off (yeeees it could be “naturally orange sand”, but I really doubt that). You know, I work with Ph.D. researchers on medical equipment. They put their photographer’s pants on one leg at a time. Hand them a PC and it will have a virus on it within six months. Greg L (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Greg, this is not meant in a personal way. Subjective corrections on pictures are a pet peeve of mine. They often enough turn correction into an oxymoron. It has nothing to do with correct. WP:OR is massively frowned upon (actually forbidden by policy) in article space. It seems odd to me that mentality has not yet settle in when it comes to image editing. Raeky's links are appreciated, they provide the kind of citation that is needed in article space as well. None the less, I'd love to hear Hans' opinion on the color issue, after all he has seen the worm with his own eyes (might be even more reliable than googling an image). --Dschwen 21:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So your subjective preference for the original is supported by WP:OR? You did one of those “I provided a link in blue so my position is true”-things. I am done with you for the rest of the day. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not stated a preference, but one could think I implied it. And I'm sorry, but I do not understand the meaning of the rest of your comment, although from the tone of it you seem upset. I'm sorry if that was my fault; it was certainly not my intention (those were the exact opposite, but it seems I failed). Let me try to explain: in absence of other reliable sources I tend to believe/trust the photographer by default. He was there when the picture was taken, he saw how it looked to him, and it is his responsibility to create an as accurate as possible representation. So he should have tried to chose a natural color rendering (by for example choosing an appropriate white balance - people should really pay attention to this(!), as it can help save you a lot of trouble afterwards). Of course nobody is perfect, so Hans could have screwed up :-). But as i said before: I'd like to hear his opinion. It might very well be sorry I set the WB too warm, the edit is more like I remember the worm. That is completely fine. --Dschwen 23:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heres pictures found on the web of it,, , , . — raeky  T  21:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Picture #2 is probably the only one of relevance, the others are probably not epitoke stage. — raeky  T  21:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We can also do a Google image search on “Clam worm” and turn on our Common sense-O-meter at 50% or more. This one is pretty interesting. It’s the same photograph as here but with different color settings. In fact, there are a number of instances of this same image on the Internet. Some are rotated 90 degrees; others are not. But the original at top, here, is the most color saturated one available on the Internet. Just looking through all the images, one can quickly see that the worms have rather normal coloration one would expect from having seen things like these on beaches. The tip off here on the original was that dark orange sand. Greg L (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you narrow the search to the same species, Nereis succinea, in which you'll see this image is about 95% of all the images of this worm you see on the internet. Obviously it's well used. — raeky  T  22:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which turns up this (“farm3”) and this (“edgar”). Clearly, our “edit” is far, far closer to the reality, though I think “planetearth” is interesting in that I suspect they punched up the green too much. Greg L (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: People may be interested to know there are other shots (I assume of the same animal) from Hans Hillewaert which show colours closer to the edit- File:Alitta succinea 2.jpg and this freaky gif (which also suggests to us the thing was alive when it was taken :)) J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Given there is evidence my colour balance edit is suitable I would like to support this image, it's an awesome animal! - Zephyris Talk 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Color edit Per reasoning of Zephyris. Is that a double vote? I voted “oppose” on the original. Greg L (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Color edit Hive001   contact  18:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Original, Oppose Edit It'd be nice to have a picture that doesn't require editing every submission because someones monitor is set too dark. --Silvestra (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)]
 * Support Color edit, oppose original Sometimes it is necessary to color edit an image, it appears the original was not true to the species. — raeky  T  13:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  talk 14:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)