Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dense mass of anomuran crab Kiwa around deep-sea hydrothermal vent.jpg

Deep sea fauna around hydrothermal vent
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2012 at 09:48:38 (UTC)
 * Reason:One of the elements of our systemic bias is that we under-feature marine material, especially from the extreme deep. This was taken at a depth of 2602m, and shows a population of Yeti Crabs (white) going about their business around a hydrothermal vent. The image also shows species of Vulcanolepas and Peltospiroidea, which are annotated.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Kiwaidae, hydrothermal vent
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
 * Creator:A. D. Rogers et al., edited by Papa Lima Whiskey 2


 * Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Question -- What's that line? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the caption it's a 10 cm scale bar. O.J. (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks... well, not very useful. It may be okay for the foreground, but it is useless the second we have some depth. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It passed academic peer review. Do you have a better suggestion? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For FP, I think a picture without the bar would be better. It's on a busy background, so we're losing detail. For images on a plain background, fine. For this... I don't think it works, from a composition standpoint. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think removing the information entirely is a step forward, in EV terms. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Information could go on the description page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's already on the description page. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I don't see a point for the bar. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think putting a scale bar on an image with depth like this is a bit of a joke. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can give any sense of scale to it otherwise. Like I said, this was accepted for publication in PLoS, so the scale was either requested or accepted by two or three academic peer reviewers (not sure how many PLoS requires). Removing it gains very little, because you'd have to clone in the background - or get original copy from the researchers. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've explained before, the problem is perspective (eg). It makes the scale bars almost meaningless. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly why it's explicitly stated that the scale applies to the foreground. You may have realised that background sizes can be roughly estimated on the basis that the crabs in the background aren't, in reality, smaller than the ones in the foreground. Your argument really makes no sense to me - it's the equivalent of saying because we can't represent ultraviolet in human vision, let's have no colour photography at all. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where in the foreground? Perspective still applies there. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to make ourselves stupider than we are. It's pretty clear to me where the foreground is. I understand you may have felt your feathers ruffled by suggestions that you should include scales in some of your images in the past. I stand by the need for them. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Quality isn't that great, and the bar really puts me off. Clegs (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should consider the problems of shooting at 2600m (thick glass) and near a HTV (hot currents, murky water from suspended sediments/biomass) - compare e.g. another prominently used hi-res photograph. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here, at these depths and water conditions the thickness of glass necessary to keep the camera from turning into a mini-crushed version of it's self poses some limitations in quality one can reasonably expect. That and the rareness of such an image, people RARELY visit these locations, and its LIKELY next time someone does visit this area could be barren and may NEVER be photographed again. Thermal vents and the associated communities are very temporary, and not a lot of people are researching them and have the funding to afford to dive on them. Some technical images one has to be a bit forgiving in the image quality, and even size in some cases like many space photographs that are featured pictures, or ones like File:Pale_Blue_Dot.png which doesn't even come close to size requirements but is clearly something that should be featured because we likely will never get an image like that again. — raeky  t  00:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I still oppose because of the bar. it's epically distracting. Clegs (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support nice, rare and very interesting image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of that bar, as I've discussed above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)