Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gephyrocapsa oceanica

Gephyrocapsa oceanica

Original - False-colour scanning electron micrograph of the coccolithophore Gephyrocapsa oceanica, showing the calcerous coccoliths on the surface that give the group its name.

NOT FOR VOTING Version before coloring, with stripy artefacts.

Example edit: Brighter, not directly prepared from original

Reason: I'm pretty sure it's obvious: A stunning scanning electron micrograph of an interesting representative of a fascinating class of unicellular organism
Articles this image appears in: Alga, coccolith, coccolithophore
Creator: ja:User:NEON, with colour by User:Richard Bartz

Support as nominator, strongly prefer original --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the true color? Zoo Fari 02:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really answerable with an 8µm organism. Colours just aren't entirely meaningful at that size. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since it's an alga, green is a good guess - although they really come in all sorts of colors (red, blue, ...) If you have enough of them, their color will show in the medium, or you can spin them down (or separate them out, if you have other things suspended in your medium) in a centrifuge, and look at the color of the pellet. More advanced work would be needed to determine the color of each different component of the cell; such work is not usually undertaken as the coloring, as Shoemaker has hinted, at or below the µm (micrometer) scale is not usually deemed interesting. In the case of coccolithophores, they seem to mostly be green. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comment I feel this got a little too dark in the coloring process. Can you ask Richard for the uncolored restored version?. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't that be adjusted simply by tweaking the levels slightly? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Going back to the original would be less destructive. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 02:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with PLW that this is too dark in the coloured version, I would support a non-coloured non-stripey version.Terri G (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment do we have any prior consensus about using false color SEM images? Seems like perhaps the B&W would be more encyclopedic, if not as pretty. Fletcher (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Electron micrographs are never coloured. However textbooks normally use the coloured version, so I dont think it is less encyclopedic. This and this are two examples of falsely coloured FPs, with one being just promoted yesterday. --Muhammad(talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're usually preferred, as they make details stand out more. There's issues with things blending together in many B&W electron micrographs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV. I must start saving for the electron microscope ;) --Muhammad(talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all except a lighter version without artefacts. Black and white would be acceptable. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support any of 'em. — Jake Wartenberg 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support prefer B&W -- Colour is good for creating separation between elements, but that's completely unnecessary in this case. —Pengo 00:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support any: All three work for me. Maedin\^talk 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gephyrocapsa oceanica color.jpg MER-C 06:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]