Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Synodus intermedius

The Sand Diver (Snyodus intermedius)
Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2015  at 03:16:18 (UTC)
 * Reason:The sand diver commonly buries itself in the sand to ambush prey, leaving its head, eyes and mouth exposed. It is believed the iridescent layer on the cornea protects the eye from the UV rays of the sun.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Synodus intermedius
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/Animals/Fish
 * Creator:Atsme


 * Support as nominator – Atsme  &#9775; Consult  03:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Majority of animal cut off, and even less of the animal in focus. Striking picture, but lacking too much in EV for a FP nom. gaz hiley  18:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - the picture features the iridescent cornea in the fish's eye, and its mouthful of needle point teeth for the article. It's a macro, and macros are not supposed to be full shots.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  19:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the nom was for the cornea or the teeth, I'd support, but it's for a fish we can't see most of in this close crop... gaz hiley 17:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It supports that very paragraph in the article where there are also full shots of the fish. I thought FP were about images that support what the article describes, including characteristics of an animal.  My reason also describes the iridescent cornea which is described in the article.  Have I misunderstood the concept of FP?  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  20:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll see what others say, but for me if a nom is about an animal, and the majority of the animal cannot be seen (whether cut off or blurred), then for me I cannot support it sorry... The beauty of this forum is we don't all think the same so I may be the only Oppose it gets... gaz hiley  11:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I can see what is being attempted here, and it works okay, but I can't help but think that more DOF would be useful here, and a bit looser crop showing the body actually under sand. (Commons, however, would likely eat this up). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately DOF is limited when using a dedicated macro lens to capture the iridescence of a small cornea, keeping in mind backscatter and reduced viz caused by disturbed sand are major issues, as is the amount of light refraction between the lens and subject which also substantially reduces clarity and detail. Should I have mentioned such factors in the beginning?  Technical difficulties are much greater when shooting u/w, particularly benthic dwellers that prefer sandy bottoms in and around coral reef structures.  It doesn't matter how much you offer to pay the fish to sit still for you, they simply won't listen.    I just thought the peculiar features of a subject - one that relatively few people even get to see - would be a major consideration when evaluating EV,  particularly as it relates to the FP criteria, "technically difficult or otherwise unique images."  It may be that non-divers or divers who don't shoot u/w photography don't fully understand why certain shots aren't possible or why others are actually pretty incredible captures.  Yes, no?  Should I withdraw this nomination?  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  17:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, most people (including myself won't) understand the technical challenges. I'm thinking, however, that being a bit further back and using a lower exposure compensation (like EV -1) would give a bit more wiggle room when it comes to DOF. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 03:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)