Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Clanculus ormophorus

Clanculus ormophorus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2020 at 17:27:07 (UTC)

Original – Detailed closeup of a Clanculus ormophorus sea snail. Snails are typically 0.7 inches in size (18 mm). This specimen is 17mm, from coast of Oman.

Reason: High quality detailed image of a Clanculus ormophorus sea snail. Snails are typically 0.7 inches in size (18 mm).
Articles in which this image appears: Clanculus ormophorus, Clanculus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs
Creator: Llez

Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the purple fringing. MER-C 18:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now. It's pronounced on the peripheries, not the middle!? perhaps it's amplified by iridescence or some physical property of the shells, rather than an optical or photographic defect. Bammesk (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it's photographic. This is a composite photo of the same shell, and I see purple fringing in all of them. Not enough that I'll oppose, though. --Janke | Talk 10:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janke, yes it's a composite. I didn't mean the periphery of the photograph, I meant the periphery of the shell (in each profile), that's where the purple fringing is. The periphery has a steep angle with respect to the camera, but the middle portion has little to no angle. I am suggesting perhaps the steep angle brings out the unusual scattering of light, due to iridescence or some other physical property, as opposed to photographic/lens imperfections. Bammesk (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account that the size of the shell is only 17 mm across, and probably shot with a zoom lens (at 47 mm) with extension ring(s) or with a diopter close-up lens, my bet is on chromatic aberration, not iridiscence. (BTW: I'd really like to know how that mollusk manages making those little bumps alternate light/dark on the shell... ;-) --Janke | Talk 22:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ black background. I have literally no idea why anyone would want to do that. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:D97B:DB0F:5213:CF0F (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote as unregistered users are not allowed to do that here. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's probably iridescence. And given the size, this is a pretty extreme zoom, so some minor imperfections are pretty acceptable. I estimate this at around a 20x zoom on my screen by a rough estimate, if the original is 17 mm, so some imperfections are natural. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Having hard crispy outlines against the black background at points of the shell where the interior outlines appear blurred and fringed by shallow dof and chromatic aberration (most noticeably at the upper right near the mouth of the shell) makes this look too fake to me, regardless of whether that is the way it was actually shot. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]