Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sea Anemone

Sea Anemone




I scanned this image from the book (the original image is 11 inches tall), and placed it in Actiniidae. It's one of the most impressive examples of scientific illustration I've come across (along with Image:Haeckel_Orchidae.jpg, Image:Haeckel Nepenthaceae.jpg, Image:Haeckel Stephoidea.jpg, and Image:Haeckel Trochilidae.jpg), especially considering its age.

*Oppose for the moment -- the image looks like it could do with some help from a descreen filter. chowells 14:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. - ragesoss 02:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a masterpiece of period illustration. (It's also in the Ernst Haeckel article) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, agree with Dante. However, it is unnecessarily large, it could be re-sampled a little smaller, to increase the sharpness. --Janke | Talk 10:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely Positively BEAUTIFUL! Illustrates its page perfectly, definitley featured picture material. Anchorage 12:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Not entirely sure why, but I really like this picture -- Gurch 15:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This is something different for sure. enochlau (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to do that from Photoshop? enochlau (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess so, typically there is a "descreen" option in the scanner software though. chowells 14:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My scanner does not have a descreen option. However, the diagonal groove pattern throughout the image is not a scanner artifact; it's actually there in the original.  The other Haeckel images have different details that seem like possible artifacts, but were processed in the same way (cropped and rotated in GIMP, then I Feel Luckied in Picasa and exported as JPG), and seem (to me at least) to also reproduce original details.  If anyone would like the original bitmap to do a more sophisticated processing job, I can provide it.--ragesoss 16:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Upload the original to either WP or Commons, drop me a line on my talk page, and I'll see what I can do... --Janke | Talk 21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I'll support now, thanks. chowells 23:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Thryduulf 14:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I support either version. Thryduulf 08:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support nice picture. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 15:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I spent a while on the original scan provided by Ragesoss, descreened it and adjusted the contrast / brightness slightly - there are some almost blown-out highligts in the first edit. Also, since the image is not intrinsically very sharp (due to registration problems in the lithographic process), I reduced the resolution from 2276 to 1600 px. --Janke | Talk 08:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks great. I would have rather had it without the descreening (which masks the lithographic character of it), but the contrast and brightness adjustments are a definite improvement.  Thanks!--ragesoss 17:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ragesoss, the descreening isn't an improvement. Also, I'd leave the resolution high... we can see the detail in the paper at that level, and understand that the limitations in sharpness are inherent in the original. Good contrast and brightness changes though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also agree. - Samsara contrib talk 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Descreening is not an improvement; always use highest possible resolution. Otherwise a definitive support. Mstroeck 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: the original is at Image:Haeckel Actiniae.png, if anyone else wants a crack at it.--ragesoss 02:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I've replaced the originally proposed file with one that is closer to Janke's edit, but without the descreening and size reduction; the palette is a little cooler, and the shadows are stronger.--ragesoss 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Early example of animal illustration in colour. Historically significant in many ways. - Samsara contrib talk 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * LoveitSupport. Just great. Pschemp | Talk 07:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. This is somehow just terribly fun. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 03:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great image. –Joke 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No-one seems to have commented on the non-descreened edit, so I'll promote the original. Raven4x4x 08:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

