Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panellus Stipticus

Panellus Stipticus
Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 03:44:54 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is a photo of a bio-luminescent fungi. It has great EV for the articles it appears on.  This photo was nominated once before, but failed to earn the promotion because of a lack of votes.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Panellus stipticus, Bioluminescence, Foxfire (bioluminescence), List of light sources, Medicinal mushrooms
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Fungi
 * Creator:Ylem


 * Support as nominator --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Eye-catching, one of the few truly interesting mushrooms. The background is grainy and initially I wanted to weak support this, but the background doesn't matter here actually. Twilight chill  t   08:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional weak support Same concerns I had when it was listed in PPR (link). Conditional on that description lists exposure information. And week because for a 21.1 mp camera the uploaded image has been downsized to less than 1 mp. — raeky  t  17:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks eye-catching in thumbnail. I was dissapointed at full size that I couldn't see the close up detail due to the small size. Jó Kritika (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm in the process of getting the larger photo from the photographer. When found, it will replace the current one. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, though I disagree that the highest EV is in bioluminescence, where it's just another example. The highest EV seems to be in Panellus stipticus (a featured article) where it alone illustrates an important section. (Also, shame on you Twilight Chill, there are very few boring mushrooms :P) J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Bioluminescence is a rare subject for FPC. This image is very eye-catching and interesting and has high EV. It is a good showcase for for FPs. Greg L (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support yay wonderful glowing mushrooms! It reminds me of Avatar. I hope, AmericanXplorer13, that you will succeed in finding the larger resolution from the photographer. A certainly valuable addition to Wikipedia! Purpy Pupple (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I contacted the photographer and have the higher resolution. Unfortunately, the photographer didn't have the correct kit for taking any closer of a shot. The high resolution photo just adds more unnecessary space to the composure. The fungus isn't any higher of a resolution. When I get home in a few days, I'll examine the photos more in Photoshop. I'm limited with the iPhone. --AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, what were your conclusions from examinations in Photoshop? Purpy Pupple (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral Small, noisy and frankly the wrong lens was used for the job. However it is also the best example for bioluminescence in fungi I could find. It is pretty weak in Bioluminescence, there are stronger images available there. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed; the EV seems highest in the species article to me. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It's fantastic, guys. I don't get the opposes at all! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the subject or the photo fantastic? Jó Kritika (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Both. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support A good shot, technically well thought out. A true macro shot may have been more disappointing not least because here we have it in good context and scale. I would be proud if it was my shot  Velella  Velella Talk 23:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The photo wouldn't superficially appear different with a macro lens, but it'd have many more pixels on target. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the problem was that it was far up in a tree, and he couldn't get closer and didn't have anything in his kit to zoom in further, which was unfortunate. — raeky  t  01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting, although a higher res version with less noise in the background would be better. SMasters (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Jó Kritika. P. S. Burton  (talk)  20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)