Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Clavaria zollingeri

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Clavaria zollingeri edit

 
Original - The coral fungus Clavaria zollingeri, commonly known as the "violet coral".
 
Edit 1 - More magenta. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason
I said "wow" when I first saw this image just a few hours ago, and immediately created the species article (will be expanding it soon). I think it's a beautiful, clear shot of a bizarre fungus.
Articles in which this image appears
Clavaria zollingeri, Clavaria
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Other_lifeforms/Fungi
Creator
Dan Molter of Mushroom Observer
  • Support as nominator --Sasata (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I love Dan's photography, I upload more of his work than anyone elses. I think this image could possibly benefit from some mild denoise filtering, but even with that flaw it's very eye catching, looks almost like undersea coral instead of a fungus. I think it would make a fine addition to our FP collection. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, simply wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support composition great - purple fungus great against yellow leaf litter - obeys rule of 3rds etc. but just 'wow' Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well, when my eyebrows arch upwards upon first sight, I suppose it’s a “support”. Greg L (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The white balance is really green. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot reproduce your finding. The histogram looks like the white balance has been corrected. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it looks like someone has pressed auto levels. The large amount of purple would throw that off. The leaves in the foreground look quite green to me. I'll post an edit tonight. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. J Milburn (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The edit is REALLY pink, is this how pink the fungus really is? — raeky (talk | edits) 03:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't answer that question, but I'd suggest using the leaves as a colour reference - they are quite green in the original and (hopefully) neutral in the edit. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The leaves look more "normal" in your edit, yes, but the bright pink of the fungus is just wow if thats accurate. Amazing picture. ;-) — raeky (talk | edits) 05:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Neutral I like the image and the colors, but it's a bit fuzzy. I think the original is the better one. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You oppose both? A little fuzzy, yes, but it is a very high resolution. Downsize it a little and then take another look. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the smaller images are like candy to the eyes, but at full size it's like music with muffled static in the background. Is there any hope of a sharper version? I'll support it if you shrink it's proportions by half, it looks good at 1235 x 1104 (1/2 its current dimensions and 1/4 its size but still allowably large enough). --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That just isn't done. All shrinking it would do is lose information. J Milburn (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine, then I withdraw my opposition altogether. I guess it is otherwise pretty feature-worthy. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An unedited version of this photo is available at MushrooomObserver.org: http://mushroomobserver.org/47508

I like the top photo best. The mushroom is already in your face; the yellow leaves and bright green background give much needed distraction. 184.57.122.217 (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, but the point is that the yellow leaves and bright green background are very unnatural. We're trying to document the weirdness of nature here, not lessen it. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, I tend to think the bottom is more accurate and that just adds more of a "wow" punch to the picture, that such a fungus exists. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original, oppose edit: Accuracy of colours is more important than looking good for EV. The original also has the wow effect. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far as we can tell, the edit has more natural colours... Compare to the background. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original (from MushrooomObserver) may reflect the true nature and the edit has very different colours. Can someone validate/prove that the edit reflects the true colour and the original is digitally manipulated? May be the creator can be contacted to answer this question. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dan put up an unedited version here (bottom image). Sasata (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The unedited one has colours similar to the original, not the edit. That's means the original documents the true colours with yellow-green leaves. I have seen similar yellow-green leaves in nature, not all dry leaves are brown. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any. Very good EV, just was used for DYK.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Color and Light If the question is about accuracy of color, then I encourage you to look at the natural light photo of the same specimen posted at MO along with this image. In natural light, the fungus appears dull pink. But what is natural light? I found this mushroom while running back to my car to escape an approaching lightning storm. It was booming and cracking and the sky was all green and dark. On a sunny day, the natural light photo would look a lot different. Vibrant colors in the top photo were achieved by using artificial light sources along with flash (edit: meta-data says flash did not fire) and the spooky natural light of a brewing thunderstorm. This photo is a representation of a fungus that can look way different depending on lighting conditions. I think I have shown it in a good light. Shroomydan (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the edit, please. Which do we prefer? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prefer edit. Surroundings of the fungus seem more natural - so this seems to be a more accurate depiction. Jujutacular T · C 06:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer edit Agree that the colors seem more natural. Sasata (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer original as it mirrors the colours of the unedited version uploaded by Dan. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer edit, for now, colours seem far more real. Compare to the background. You will note that some arguments in support of the original are completely and utterly misguided. However, if Dan reckons the original is more representative (and, as above, I ask him to look at the surrounding leaves- were they really that green? The "unedited" suggests so, but I can't help but think that it doesn't look natural.) J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer original I don't think it is naturally that bright of pink as the edit shows it, see [1]. I trust the photographer's color choice. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer original - I'd rather have the choice of the person who was there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer original The edit looks unrealistically saturated. I wish I saw the real thing so I could know. I’m just going on impressions. Greg L (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer edit - The leaves shouldn't be green, regardless of lighting method and they have the same lighting as the fungi itself. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer edit Per Noodle snacks. Greg L (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer top image on aesthetic grounds only. I think it is a prettier picture. I took about fifteen shots of this specimen using a mixture of natural light, blue spectrum diode flood lights, and built in flash. The color is different on each photo depending on placement of lights, f-stop, white balance, etc. This image was my favorite of the lot. As someone mentioned, I did hit the auto-levels button and it brightened the image.
  • Oppose bottom photo on technical grounds. The bottom image is a color edit of a color-edited photo. I'm not adverse to edits, but a better edit could probably be produced from the original image, which is available at mushroomobserver. Shroomydan (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original, as per Dan's reasoning above. However, I would certainly support a delist/replace if someone was to create an edit based on the actual original. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer original Good point about the color edit of a color edit, didn't think about it that way before. I'm changing preference to the original as well, and agree with JMilburn's delist/replace option above. Sasata (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Clavaria zollingeri 90973.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Clavaria_zollingeri&oldid=1197948892"