Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Siganus doliatus edit.jpg

Pencil-streaked rabbitfish
Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 15:59:45 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good resolution and detail, clearly reproduced colour pattern, encyclopaedic composition.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Siganus doliatus
 * FP category for this image:Animals/Fish
 * Creator:Leonard Low, Papa Lima Whiskey (edit)


 * Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * semi-weak support (about 3/4): tail seems a little blurry, but otherwise an outstanding pic. I thought there might be some issues with the head as well, but in full-scale (no pun intended), it looks fine.  Xtifr tälk 02:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * would a scale be necessary? Nergaal (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ideally, photographers would provide these, but some people oppose the late addition of a scale because there's often no reliable way of ascertaining exactly how big the fish was (there is a way to calculate this, but the necessary data is missing here). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not too sharp and lighting isn't great. —Pengo 02:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think following several discussions of marine images that have been nominated, there's now a basic acceptance of the necessity of flash for underwater photography beyond a few metres of depth. On sharpness, I would like to differ, too - there is surprising skin and scale detail. It may have looked like noise to you, but if you check especially near the anal fin, and at the base of the tail, you can see the photo shows up some well-magnified anatomical detail there. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with using a flash. I use a flash for most of my photography. A flash doesn't make bad lighting. It's how it's used. As for the the lack of sharpness, it's around the edges that I noticed, e.g. the fins. It's probably motion blur actually, but if a flash is being used there's no excuse for motion blur. Perhaps if the exposure was longer to bring out the background there'd be a reason for motion blur, but the background is hardly visible. —Pengo 12:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Sorry, I don't think this one's quite there. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din\ talk 18:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)