Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nemanthus annamensis

Nemanthus annamensis

 * Reason:Another fine picture from Nhobgood. Clear EV, high quality.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Nemanthus annamensis, Nemanthus, Sea anemone
 * FP category for this image:Animals/Others
 * Creator:Nick Hobgood


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as co-nominator ^^ Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose (original) or neutral, maybe I can be convinced for WS.. Oddly enough I saw this recently also and thought about nominating it, but decided not to because I thought the composition was odd. Any version smaller than the original looks kind of cartoonish and the background colors are strange how it goes, seemingly to my eye, unnaturally from dark blue to even darker blue without looking deeper down... -- I'ḏ ♥  One  13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a wonderfully composed image, the dark blue most likely is entirely natural, probably extremely clear water combined with depth and/or reduced daylight. It's a striking image and I can't see how you see it composed wrong? — raeky  t  13:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just look at how weird the preview is, it looks more like a color pencil or chalk drawing than a photograph, and unless this was taken in particularly deep water (though according to this these creatures live only 15 meters/50 feet down, whereas according to this and this the ocean is lit by the Sun up to almost 700 feet/214 meters), I can't see any reason why the background should be so much darker than the foreground, and it certainly doesn't explain why the light source, which seems to be coming from an angle to the right of the camera, wouldn't shine on the background; I'm wondering if this was majorly digitally altered. Even though I don't like this photo it is definitely educational and good in some ways, but I don't think it's feature-worthy. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  18:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Light levels do vary through the day, if you never noticed. In extremely clear water the water color is very blue. 50 feet is pretty deep, deep enough to color everything blue. this image was taken 50 feet deep, as by it's caption. The link you gave about the depth these creatures live in has a black background picture, according to your logic thats not natural. The sun doesn't just go from off to on like a light switch. And it's pretty obvious that a strobe was used to make this photograph. I don't see where your talking about the light source being in the background. Do you have any expereince in diving and undersea photography? Do you have much experience in photography in general? — raeky  t  18:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Deep sea photography? Can't say I do, if I had the money and time to do it and buy/rent/research the equipment necessary I wouldn't be sitting at my computer arguing about a strangely-lit picture of a bunch of boneless creatures, but this isn't about me. I know the Sun doesn't switch off, it gets dimmer. This was only one meter, so does that mean ALL underwater photos should be allowed to be dark? These were as much as 8 meters, this is 50 feet, this from here says it's about 50 feet. It seems to me that your link, my first from this reply and the nominated pic all simply are poorly lit, which wouldn't be allowed for an above-ground photo, I'm gonna need stronger convincing that this really is up to par to vote for feature. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  19:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you oppose flash photography and only support naturally light subjects? At 50 feet of water, or even in most cases much shallower depths, you HAVE to have a flash to accurately render color. As we discussed in other recent underwater noms that water filters out the reds very quickly and it doesn't take much depth in water until you only have blue light. Because of that colors can only be rendered accurately if you have underwater lighting. I don't quite understand your logic, either your willfully ignoring that fact, or don't understand that. — raeky  t  01:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject is well-lit, is it not? The lighting on the background, providing it is neither distracting nor misleading, shouldn't really be an issue, so far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Excellent on all fronts. — raeky  t  13:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support A bit too dark and too saturated (implausible saturation based on intuition and a totality of visual clues), but it is very eye-catching and interesting. Greg L (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew I couldn't be the only one who thought so. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  19:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IdloveOne Hive001   contact  17:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This comment is not intended to influence the voting process for this (my) image but to provide more information regarding the use of light in underwater photography. It is true that the deeper you go, less sunlight makes it through the water column.  Also, as depth increases, you lose more of the red end of the spectrum leaving only blues and greens at depth.  Artificial light, through the use of strobes, will allow the full spectrum of light on the subject.  As for the color of the background, this is not so much a function of depth as it is of shutter speed and aperture.   With a fast shutter speed and a small aperture, you can have a black background and vibrant colors in the foreground at very shallow depth.  This is a good technique for framing a subject using the black or dark blue “negative space” to highlight a subject.  Another method of altering the background color is to vary the angle of the shot.  If you put the subject between you and the surface, the blue background will be a lighter blue and some photographers choose to have the sun in the background in what is called a “sunball” shot.  If you position yourself so the subject is between you and the depths, the resulting background will be dark to black.   In this shot the colonial anemones where somewhere in between where the top of the background is lighter than the bottom. This gradient does not affect the subject as it is being lit relatively evenly by the strobes.  I hope this helps in evaluating future underwater images.  Keep an eye on the f-stop and shutter speeds in the photo’s exif information to confirm the above phenomena.  Thanks.  NickNhobgood (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the primer on underwater photography, Nhobgood. I voted “support” for this one. Note that my support reasoning cited my opinion that—subjectively—this image appears to have over-saturated colors. Is that the case here? Or does this type of sea anemone really have such a deeply saturated, brownish coloration? Greg L (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Greg L, the richness of the color of the anemone bases in this image is due to several factors. I do like to shoot using the "vivid" setting in the Olympus which does give richer colors but you will notice that in many macro underwater photography shots, marine life is naturally characterized by very rich colors especially when small apertures are used with additional lighting from the use of strobes. Finally, many anemones have bases with deep rich colors, especially reds and oranges, as is the case with this one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhobgood (talk • contribs) 04:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspected a “vivid” setting; my brother does that on all his photos. Normally I vote “oppose” for that until the color is corrected. But this is such an eye-catching photo, I voted support. Given that his is, however, an *encyclopedia*, might you be inclined to provide an alternative version here with the color tweaked to match—as best as you can recall from personal, first-hand experience—what it looks like in reality? That would likely reverse the above two “oppose” votes and get this awarded FP status. Greg L (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Greg L, your suggestion is compelling and may take us into the metaphysical when trying to define "what it looks like in reality ? " This begs the question as to whether any flash photography should be used at all as we are adding artificial light to what normally would be another reality under sunlight.  The difference is even more pronounced underwater where we are bringing light to things that have never been seen as "red" due to their position in the water column.  I have uploaded an image from my dive course to better illustrate this issue.These two images are of the same soft coral.  The top image is lit with ambient or natural light.  The bottom image was taken with artificial light from the camera's flash.  As sunlight penetrates the water column the red end of the spectrum (reds, oranges and yellows) are lost leaving only blues and greens. Therefore, the colors we see in underwater photography using artificial light are evident only at the precise time the strobes go off and/or when lit up with an underwater light. So, the only recollection I have of the subject under artificial light is the playback image on the back of the camera after taking the shot. I will go back to the original images and see what they looked like and try and "correct" the image for the additional saturation from the "vivid" setting but given the above challenges regarding the "reality" of color underwater, some subjectivity will be inevitable. Clear as mud ? Nhobgood (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Amphianthus sp. (Colonial gorgonian wrapper anemones.jpg have uploaded a slightly less saturated version of the image (right). This compensates for some of the saturation from the "vivid" setting on the camera. It must also be noted that some of the white balance sliders on image processing software will saturate the dark blues. (The use of white balance adjustments also brings us back to the question of what is "natural" with the primarily blue-green tints at depth.) As for the gradient from light to dark, from top to bottom, you see in the background it is due to both the position the image was taken in the water column as described above, and after looking at the images taken that day, the darker part at the bottom is due to the reef in the lower background. One must also be aware that much of the variation in light in an image, especially in underwater photography is due to aperture and shutter speed and not depth. At the same depth, a background can be light blue with larger aperture/slower shutter speed or dark blue to black if taken with small aperture/very fast shutter speeds. This imagewas taken at a very shallow depth but with a very fast shutter speed of 1/1,000th of a second. The same phenomenon can be seen when taking pictures of a blue sky - light blue to white with open aperture and slow shutter and dark blue with smaller aperture and fast shutter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhobgood (talk • contribs) 18:02, 20 August 2010
 * This is evidenced by the deeper you go in the ocean the more the creatures are red. MANY of the creatures that inhabit the mesopelagic zone are red, but in their natural light, what very little that reaches those depths they're quite black. Since no red light reaches those depths evolutionary advantage between being black or red is minimal since the absence of red light makes red appear black. So it becomes a question of what is natural for these creatures? Since the mesopelagic depths is VERY low light, to photograph anything at those depths you have to use artificial light, which obviously isn't a light spectrum these creatures have ever experienced and isn't natural for them. But to show them in their natural light isn't good either since either they'd be all black, or have very few detail, and would make poor photographs. Even in shallower waters like the soft coral Nick linked too above, in it's natural light it's very monotone, the reds are blacks and the rest is blues. A diver will see it as the blue and black version and not see the hidden colors, the reds and such, the flash camera reveals that hidden world. I know from a scientific standpoint these deeper water creatures are show in artificial light for identification purposes, so from a educational and science stance, strobes are a must. As for the issue of using "vivid" setting on the camera, my experience with cameras is those settings generally don't punch the saturation to drastic levels, they obviously punch it up some, but usually not by a ton. Most professional photographers post-process their shots by sharping and punching up saturation anyway, so seeing shots in say National Geographic those have been tweaked too. Camera's generally don't capture colors accurately and digital sensors usually are less saturated then you want. I personally don't have a problem with the vivid setting on his pictures, I think they're quite excellent, definitely some of the best underwater photography we have on Wikipedia by far. — raeky  t  19:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the edit, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Extra  9 9 9  (Contact me  +  contribs) 02:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support None of the issues that have been raised above strike me as compelling and, though I have no experience in the field, they seem to have been explained away. Cowtowner (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually the creator confirmed everything I thought. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  04:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And explained why it was not a bad thing... Yes, a flash was used. It doesn't take a fricking genius to work out why. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the relatively shallow depth this was taken at in comparison to the possible 7 diagonal miles of ocean there are, this was 1) Just taken at the wrong time of day or had the Sun obstructed by something 2) Digitally altered when photographed so that it's not realistic anymore 3) Poorly lit. It's cool that Nick went scuba diving and provided us with an image of this subject and I don't know what his schedule was when when he went diving or if the only one of these was maybe behind a big sea cliff, but this one I think blew or simply didn't have a lot of chances to be much higher quality and I'm afraid I just don't find it eye-catching or believable. I think this particular image is more for a slideshow reel to show family than it is of scientific value or spectacular undersea photo quality. Most of the photos on Nick's page are freaking amazing, this is not one of them. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh well… let my above “support” vote be considered to apply especially to the less-saturated one, which still looks stunning to me. I’ve only dived in muddy water where you could only see 10 to 20 feet. I can only imagine being in clear waters and being able to see something like this. Amazing. Greg L (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm with you, the less saturated one looks slightly more realistic. I don't believe that even at night water can ever look as perfectly evening sky blue as in the original unless maybe you're in a pool, a tank or a urinal with one of those tablets. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  06:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear One, constructive criticism much appreciated. Please do not dismiss blue backgrounds in underwater photography as many photos will have such backgrounds.  I offer a recent photo from an accomplished underwater photographer to provide another example here. If the diver had gone to macro and taken a photo of the lower part of the sea fan with a greater downward angle, the background would have shown as a dark evening sky or urinal tablet blue. ;-)  It is good to be suspicious of modifications given the capabilities of software but do not underestimate the range and variety of colors nature has to offer underwater. Thanks. Nick Nhobgood (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That example is what I would expect from a diving photo (the fan looks a bit overly lit but it's nice), I know I'm looking through water and that the field of vision should be very shallow unless you look toward sunlight. In the original it looks like a open night sky in a city with a lot of light pollution obscuring the stars with no clouds and unlimited visibility - which is impossible underwater under any condition. I've never taken photos underwater, but I love the beach. =) Weak support edit. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  05:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I, for one, prefer the original's colouring. Cowtowner (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With fewer clipped shadows and less blown saturation (when viewed as HSV), prefer alt. It looks like it was redone from RAW, which is how things should be. Good job. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Makeemlighter, could you please close this? Been here a while. ::7.5:: (hover) total supports, :2: opposes (both specifically at the original), 3 statements/votes out of the 7 votes for the edit including :1: half vote, :1: preference for the original. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  04:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The photographer, Nhobgood, who took this shot stated above (18:02, 20 August 2010 post) as follows: I have uploaded a slightly less saturated version of the image (right). This compensates for some of the saturation from the "vivid" setting on the camera. That upload is the un-captioned alt edit, above. Regardless of which image might strike each of us here as most stunning, an encyclopedia can not misrepresent the coloration of a sea anenome. Since the “vivid” setting on cameras produce colors that are richer and more saturated than actual, I think it is abundantly clear which of the two above images has the most EV. Clearly, the edit, with its more true-to-life color saturation, is still a very stunning image (take a look at its enlargement). Wikipedia is the beneficiary of a talented underwater photographer who donated it to the project; let’s ensure one of these gets promoted. Greg L (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not necessarily true. In my experience digital cameras often produce images that are blander than reality; a vivid setting can therefore also offer a more accurate rendering of the subject. Cowtowner (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been noted before, it is somewhat of a myth to assume that some colours are "real" while other, similar colours are not. It depends under what circumstances you observe the subject. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Struck my earlier “support” vote. Lack of EV as a result of inappropriately depicting the sea anenome with coloration not found in nature. What is “noted here”, J Milburn, is sometimes not true and often reflects the opinion of amateurs who are anxious to espouse on science but have no expertise or formal training in the subject of how the eye responds and adapts to images and how light transmits through water. This is one of the shortcomings of Wikipedia, where a 14-year-old kid can revert the writings of someone with a Ph.D. in the subject (which drives away many real experts on subjects). I’m a certified scuba diver and know how things look under water. Over-saturated colors is an ongoing problem here on FPC because of the ease with which volunteer contributors can set their cameras to “vivid” saturation and the ease of low-cost (or free) photo editing software. The first image, above, appears implausibly saturated. The edit is not much improved. A more important issue is this image of the same thing was taken by a commercial firm DeapSeaImages.com that has genuine expertise in this subject and makes a living at it . Researching existing images from the pros is a step I should have taken before voting the first time and mentioned this issue of wildly implausible saturation. This image fails due to lack of EV due to misrepresenting the coloration of the subject where there is authoritative, objective evidence to the contrary. Greg L (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Greg L - I appreciate your comment and would like to offer the following - these anemones interested me specifically for the variation in color that their bases showed as I had not seen any like that in over 600 dives off the Northern Coast of East Timor. Although not common, some of the other ones found were more like the one you mention in your comment above such asthis group, this group, this individual, this individual, and this group. All these images were taken using the same Olympus vivid setting. I was also surprised to see the all white version of this colonial anemone, further demonstrating the great variation. I believe that specimens of a rare color should not be dismissed because the majority of other examples are of another color. Finally, I cannot repeat enough that the same specimen can be taken using two different shutter speeds and apertures and yield very different results.  The faster the shutter speed and smaller the aperture the richer the colors in the captured image. The difference is much more pronounced in underwater photography.  Nhobgood (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This search on “Gorgonian wrapper” at DeapSeaImages.com, which is this, very specific species of sea anenome, demonstrates what they typically look like. The intense and clearly enhanced colors reflecting off the white tentacles here shows that this image has had its color punched up beyond all comprehension. Even if the true situation was that this image is a specimen of a rare color, as you say, the Nemanthus annamensis article (which is just a stub to make way for your picture) should state somewhere that the photo is of an example with “rare color” and is not typical nor representative of the species in general. That would clue other would-be contributors to offer up and replace the existing image with one that is more typical if the species because, as you wrote: because the majority of other examples are of another color. Greg L (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Greg L. I am sorry you see it that way and that with only one other example you find it easy to conclude that this image was altered in the manner you describe. The best thing about Wikipedia is that it is open and everyone is entitled to their opinion. All I was offering was the experience of hundreds of hours of underwater photography to explain that this is pretty close to what these anemones look like when taken under artificial light.  It is for each individual to decide whether they think so or not. In the meantime, here is a picture of a similar colonytaken in the Red Sea of similar color variation. I guess the coloration is not as rare as I first thought.  Frankly, I am glad that reviewers on Wikipedia are so critical of the content. This can only assure higher quality images and articles for the Encyclopedia, just don't throw out the baby with the bath water.   Thanks Nhobgood (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don’t know why you would write only one other example; the  provided link has four images—all taken by an professional outfit that sells marine imagery. Flickr pictures aren’t what one would call an auditable RS. Greg L (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's deeply unwise of Greg to suggest that individuals of one species are always coloured the same. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Get real. I suggested no such thing. Greg L (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Papa Lima Wiskey, yes there are many examples of color differentiation between individuals of the same species, like us for example, but in this case Greg L has reason to doubt the color. I must recommend that this FP entry be de-listed.  Although I do not agree with the manner in which Greg L rather crassly states that the image must have been grossly altered, after more research, there is very good reason to believe that these are colonial anemones of a different genus -Amphianthus An example with similar color and form from the Philippines can be seen here. I also found a similar one in an Indonesian field manual. I apologize for erroneously identifying the animals. I will change the information on both images above and make a genus page for this image in order to correctly represent it on Wikipedia.Nhobgood (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I think, with that, this nom has been confusing enough. With such a drastic change at this stage in the game, we would have to discuss the entire issue anew. I feel this should be closed as not promoted- if I can do this, I would like to withdraw my nomination. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)