Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pennant coralfish melb aquarium.jpg

Pennant Coralfish
Closing some noms today and realized just how few fish FP's there are. This pic shows a Pennant fish in the Melbourne Aquarium. It's sharp and has a nice background (not easy in an Aquarium!) and shows an interesting (at least I think) fish.


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I only like the orginal though, the edits are too pixelated. Great encyclopedic value and good quality. The only issue is the slight blown highlights, but those are hard to avoid considering the fish reflecting scales. Nautica Shades (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 2 (see my comments further down). I brought out some detail in the pelvic fins, which are almost black in the original. Nice fish! Edible? ;-P PS: Horrible problems with wiki tha past two days - up & downloads stall or break, has anyone else noticed? --Janke | Talk 13:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PPS: Fir, I liked your first version better (on commons image page), the unsharp masking you used to bring out the scales did strange things to the background! If you can get back the original background and still keep the better scales, I could make new fins for you... ;-) --Janke | Talk 13:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice edit... I mean that doesn't look realistic at all! ;-)--Fir0002 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support (Original - I don't get what's going on with the edit Janke, I can't even see it). Lovely photo. However can I suggest this pic be added to the Butterflyfish article as well or instead, as despite its resemblance to the Moorish Idol, and its mention in that article, it's not even in the same Family. Until there's an article on Heniochus, or this actual species, Butterflyfish is about as close as I can find on Wikipedia. --jjron 13:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, I brought detail to the black fins (and the scales above them). However, this can be seen only when viewed in full size (I hope you did), on a properly calibrated monitor (I hope yours is)... --Janke | Talk 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I mean I literally can't see Edit 1, even when I try to open just its image page, but it must just be me for some reason cos obviously others can see it (can see Edit 2). --jjron 07:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you see three (or even four) dark gray circles in the calibration image? If not, your monitor doesn't display shadow detail well. --Janke | Talk 07:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Suppport - Looks great -- ZeWrestler  Talk 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 edit 2 &mdash; I told you already, man. Try a career in photography. ♠ SG →Talk 17:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Its not a bad photo and I agree that they're difficult take good photos of, but I can't help but think that the background bokeh isn't realistic looking. Is that really how it looked out of camera or did you blur it, Fir0002? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No blur applied, that's how it looked. Can't tell you off hand, but I'd have been using a pretty large aperture due to the low light which would have contributed to the bg blur I suppose. --Fir0002 23:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the BG looks manipulated in the original, too. To me, it appears to be unsharp masking with large radius, to bring out the scales. Fir fixed it in edit 2. --Janke | Talk 08:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support either original or edit 1. I opened two windows and flipped back and forth between the original and the edit, and the only visible difference I see (at full size) is the lightening of the fins. If there really is a difference in the two backgrounds, my monitor isn't properly calibrated, because I don't notice a thing. Oh, and Janke, Fish are friends, not food. -- Tewy  20:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ;-) --Fir0002 23:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears that not all people agree with that... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: The bg is the same in original and edit 1, see comment below. --Janke | Talk 08:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support edit 2. Better background, and the fins are shown. -- Tewy  17:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 nice pic, the edit is nice cause you get to see the fins. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, edit 2 is what I "wanted". Fir: if you can get all supporters of edit 1 to switch to edit 2, you can remove my edit 1, since the change there is incorporated in edit 2, even if not quite as clearly. Tewy: edit 1 is done from the displayed original, but there was an earlier version which is in edit 2 now - I definitely like the background better in that one. I think edit 2 also addresses Diliff's concern. --Janke | Talk 06:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 18:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)