Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Auricularia auricula-judae

Auricularia auricula-judae edit

Original - The fruit body of Auricularia auricula-judae, also known as the Jew's Ear or Jelly Ear, is normally 3 to 8 centimetres (1.2 to 3.1 in) across, but can be as much as 12 centimetres (4.7 in). It is distinctively shaped, typically being reminiscent of a floppy ear, though the fruit bodies can also be cup-shaped. It is normally attached to the substrate by the back surface of the cup, though there can also be a rudimentary stem. The species has a tough, gelatinous, elastic texture when fresh, but it dries hard and brittle. The outer surface is a bright reddish-tan-brown with a purplish hint, often covered in tiny, downy hairs of a grey colour. It can be smooth, as is typical of younger specimens, or undulating with folds and wrinkles.

I'm not quite the artist I'd like to be, nor is my camera the best in the world. However, I am pleased with this picture, and think it serves to illustrate the features of A. auricula-judae fruit bodies well (the colour, the hairs, the folds, etc). It has been stable in the article (which is a good article) for several months, where it is used specifically to illustrate the section on the appearance of the fruit body, offering something different from the younger specimen used in the infobox. I've not nominated any of my own pictures before, so I was wondering what people thought of it. It's not stunningly sharp at full res, but it is does have a very high resolution.

Articles this image appears in: Auricularia auricula-judae

Creator: J Milburn

Suggested by: J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I wouldn't mind it's not 100% sharp. But the DOF is to shallow in this case. The only thing that is sharp enough is top spot, while the rest blurry. I also don't want to see a slimy creature on the mainpage while I am eating. --Niabot (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably oppose this if it were on FPC. The DOF is too shallow, and I don't like the composition (especially the big overexposed patch in the top-left corner). Incidentally, I thought the version that is currently the lead image in the article is very good: the DOF is again a bit shallow, but if you could re-shoot something similar (perhaps a focus-stack would help) then you might get something which FP-worthy. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with NotFromUtrecht about the article's lead image. To be honest, I think it's nearly there and might actually have a shot at passing. I don't know a lot about mushrooms, but that shot seems to say a lot about the environment in which this mushroom grows. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder