Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pillar coral
Pillar coral edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2015 at 17:20:16 (UTC)
_(San_Salvador_Island,_Bahamas)_1_(15513345363).jpg)
- Reason
- Nicely shot, colourful, and well done. In this delist nom we agreed this was much, much better than what was then a featured image, but also that it was best done as a new nom instead of a delist and replace when they're this different.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Coral, Pillar coral
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Cnidaria
- Creator
- Mark Peter, from Flickr
- Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Abstain It's a pity most of these underwater images have weird focus and chromatic aberration issues. With proper (albeit probably very expensive) underwater gear it is possible to get tack sharp, undistorted images... --Janke | Talk 20:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Is it possible to get images under water that aren't blurred a bit? Could you provide an example, pls? --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- AFAIK, you need a camera housing with a spherical glass port, not a flat one. The center of the sphere should be at the nodal point of the camera lens. Thus, the light rays are not refracted in the port (as it is in a flat one) since they are all perpendicular to the spherical port surface, while a flat port always bends and diffracts some of the rays, more at the edges of the image.--Janke | Talk 20:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- PS: From Wikipedia itself, just found it: There are optical issues with using cameras inside a watertight housing. Because of refraction, the image coming through the glass port will be distorted, in particular when using wide-angle lenses. The solution is to use a dome-shaped or fish-eye port, which corrects this distortion. Most manufacturers make these dome ports for their housings, often designing them to be used with specific lenses to maximize their effectiveness. The Nikonos series allowed the use of water contact optics: i.e., lenses designed to be used whilst submerged, without the ability to focus correctly when used in air. --Janke | Talk 20:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- For those with unlimited budgets there is the Nikon 1 AW1.©Geni (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- PS: From Wikipedia itself, just found it: There are optical issues with using cameras inside a watertight housing. Because of refraction, the image coming through the glass port will be distorted, in particular when using wide-angle lenses. The solution is to use a dome-shaped or fish-eye port, which corrects this distortion. Most manufacturers make these dome ports for their housings, often designing them to be used with specific lenses to maximize their effectiveness. The Nikonos series allowed the use of water contact optics: i.e., lenses designed to be used whilst submerged, without the ability to focus correctly when used in air. --Janke | Talk 20:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps Godot13, who's a scuba diver, could offer some insight? Sca (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- AFAIK, you need a camera housing with a spherical glass port, not a flat one. The center of the sphere should be at the nodal point of the camera lens. Thus, the light rays are not refracted in the port (as it is in a flat one) since they are all perpendicular to the spherical port surface, while a flat port always bends and diffracts some of the rays, more at the edges of the image.--Janke | Talk 20:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Really? Is it possible to get images under water that aren't blurred a bit? Could you provide an example, pls? --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment-I think (this is just my own opinion) FP-quality underwater photography is very difficult, more so than above-water. Is it possible to take nearly perfect photos, sure. David Doubilet is one of the best underwater photographers in the field.1, 2, 3 (and the video of the shoot), 4, 5. But there are other stunning UW photographers too 6, 7, 8, 9. As far as the CA, if the raw file is available I think that could be fixable, but the focus (of the main object of the photo) is a bit off. I agree with Janke's comment about the Nikonos series cameras (I've tried one once), you can not effectively use them out of the water and they take fantastic UW photos (though none of mine gave me any incentive to continue)...--Godot13 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Long & short, this is a pretty good (and certainly colorful) photo, though not a perfect one. The blurriness doesn't seem too pronounced this time, and the larger fish (species?) makes for a nice composition. Allowing for the difficulties of UW photography, I'm inclined to support. Sca (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support I'd like to thank everyone for all the insightful explanations about underwater photography. Concerning the current photo candidate, I tend to agree with Sca. This photo is so much better than the previously delisted one. In case we might find any more useful ones here on Commons, we still could make up our minds anew. --Tremonist (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Hi all - this is James St. John. if you read the caption of the photo (it's ultimately from my flickr pages), the photo was not taken by me, but a friend of mine - Mark Peter. Please keep that in mind when commenting on the picture. Biologic identifications are also given in the original caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsj1771 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 September 2015
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)