Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crinipellis zonata

Crinipellis zonata
Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2010 at 19:59:12 (UTC)
 * Reason:Highly encyclopedic method of displaying the species, so that all necessary information is conveyed. Compelling, pretty, colourful (or as colourful as a photo of a little brown mushroom can be) and high resolution.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Crinipellis zonata, Crinipellis
 * FP category for this image:Fungi
 * Creator:Shroomydan

Suspended per nominator's request. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1) the colors appear implausibly saturated based on common-sense experience with the way things look on this planet. 2) It’s “a little brown mushroom.” Ergo, I can’t see visitors being awestruck by the quality of this image or its subject matter. Greg L (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Using my upload tool are ya? ;-) — raeky  T  20:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support It's saturated, but I don't feel it's oversaturated, moss like that is pretty darn green. I don't think all our featured pictures will (a) ever make it on the front page and (b) need to fit the unofficial rule of end-user clickablity. It's a fine illustration for Crinipellis zonata, and fits all the check marks necessary for a technical species FP. — raeky  T  20:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Pretty darn green. I’ve been digging the stuff out of my lawn all summer and poisoning it with iron. But that green? I don’t think so. With regard to your unofficial rule of end-user clickablity, one *official* criteria upon which images should be judged is eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. My paraphrasing of that to “stop, stare & click” is just that: a paraphrasing… of an official criteria. Greg L (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but that criteria has to be loosely interpreted I think for technical sciency stuff in some instances, not all users will want to click an image of a common bird or plain mushroom, but that doesn't devalue that image on it's technical standards and EV. Yes it is saturated up some, but I don't think it's saturated to the point of it being grossly inaccurate to the real colors of the subject. — raeky  T  21:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can assure you 100% that if I went to the front page of a website (say, the BBC homepage) and I saw this picture, I would click on it straight away to read the accompanying story. I can also assure you that I stopped and stared when I saw it. In fact, it interested me enough to write the accompanying article- this isn't even a mushroom that I will ever see in the flesh, as it doesn't grow in Europe the UK. I was browsing through Mushroom Observer and this one jumped straight out at me, which is why I nominated it. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On a loosely related note, I'd identify the moss to compare colour, but the books I'd use cover European mosses, so I wouldn't be confident. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even the brown here looks suspiciously saturated. I get pictures like this from my brother all the time. He sets his BarbarianOS computer so his image-editing software has a check-box setting enabled (called something like “Explosion at the Disney factory” or “1966 color TV above the bar at the tavern”). The results look like this. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Greg has a point here about the oversaturated green, and the strange white fringing of the caps doesn't help. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The white fringing? J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a strange white glow at the edge of the cap that extends into the periphery as well. It's a bit blown at the edge as well, might be part of the same effect. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Greg does have a point about the saturation in my view (fixable with an edit if anyone can be bothered). Arguing that its not an FP because "little brown mushroom" is a non sequitur though. I wish the image quality was higher, but would support a de-saturated edit. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if someone contacted Dan he would upload the original file for this picture, or make the edit himself. Hes shown great patience in the past to indulge our requests. — raeky  T  03:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've contacted Dan asking if there is an original. Could we perhaps have this suspended until then? J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I was kinda surprised to see this photo nominated, because it's "just a little brown mushroom". Of course Crinipellis zonata is one of the most striking LBMs. I have uploaded three unedited images of this collection to mushroomobserver.org. If somebody would like to have a go at making a better edit be my guest. I have addressed questions about color quite a bit lately. I hope that folks are not laboring under the naive notion that color is a property adhering in an object and that a photograph copies the color.

Greg mentioned a “1966 color TV above the bar at the tavern”. This is a good image to contemplate. How could these mushrooms best be displayed through such a medium? brightly and vividly right? Is a computer monitor that much different? Both are composed of red, green, and blue pixels, little colored flashlights if you will. There are no purple pixels or yellow pixels. There are certainly no brown pixels. Black pixels are really just gray. Turn of the monitor and see that it is not black. Pixels emit light, mushrooms reflect light. Is it even possible for them to be the 'same color'?

That's all i want to say about color for now. Shroomydan (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your efforts Dan, they are appreciated. I have uploaded all of the "original" shots and added them as alts; I'll see what people think. I'm gonna go ahead and relist this debate. J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Relisted. If I've done anything wrong, feel free to fix it and let me know on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3 I like that one best. Shroomydan (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 of Alt 3 I'm sorry to add to the confusion. When you brighten up any of the alts it you still end up with electric green moss. I think your camera may set to produce saturated photographs. This is quite common with compact cameras as it makes the pictures pop a bit more. It is adjustable in the menus though. I created an edit, which aside from the crop was going mostly on the appearance of the moss and leaves in the background. I do think the Alt improves on the original in many ways. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Edit 1 of Alt 3 Way below our standards in terms of visible detail. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I repeat, "If a mushroom fell off a tree in the forest, would any wikipedians hear it?"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not helpful. I don't give a flying fuck about Chicago, but I don't feel the need to make snide comments on your nominations. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with J Milburn Tony - I've personally become very bored with multiple noms of Chicago, yet I choose just to steer clear rather than leave sarcastic comments... Please either support, oppose, or leave well alone if you don't have anything useful to say... Gazhiley (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/97845 It looks really good at full size. These are small mushrooms that have been magnified several orders of magnitude. The photo is still very colorful; I use the vivid setting on my camera. It makes the images interesting and beautiful. Eyes adapted to the light of a computer monitor see color differently than eyes adapted to dark green shade in deep woods. The color of the moss was a little otherworldly. I probably shot the top image with the "fluorescent" white balance setting. The next one down clearly had a different white balance setting that looks more natural. This photo is meant to be viewed at full size. Shroomydan (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Final edit I spent a little time making an edit of Alt1. It's here:
 * Thanks for your efforts (again). I've uploaded the image and added it to the nomination; it's certainly my favourite of the batch. This nomination's become a bit all over the place now- I will consider renominating that version at in the future if this crashes and burns now. If it's any consolation, it was seeing your photo that motivated me to write the article, which is now rated as a good article, and will be (hopefully along with your picture) on the main page soon. J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * support Edit1 Alt1 These are exquisite specimens, glorious little brown mushrooms :) .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shroomydan (talk • contribs) 01:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very complicated. It might be worth picking the best one and re-nominating it. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)