Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Bubble Net Feeding.jpg
Image:Bubble Net Feeding 2.jpg edit
I took this picture in Alaska this summer. It is pretty good and large picture of a unique behavior that doesn't get seen very often. It is currently used in humpback whale. What do you all think?
Comments:
- Is that hair or other fibers I see in the full version? I'm assuming that you took this on film and scanned it. Is it possible for you to scan it with the scanner surface a bit cleaner? Other editors have been known to edit out things like that, but if you have the image it might be better to scan it again. I just took some 35 mm pictures myself, and the scans came out much, much dirtier than yours, so I don't even know if it's possible to clean a scanner (with a lens cloth, I'd assume) to get a better image than what you've got. Also, I really don't know how FP voters would feel about that image; it is diffcult to see what's going on, but I assume it's always difficult to figure out what's going on from the surface when whales are feeding. Enuja (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. I have some other pictures that I took with a digital camera here, here, and here, for example. My partner and I were handing cameras back and forth to eachother the whole time. I'm sure that I'm not technically advanced enough to do anything about the phantom fibers on the scanning surface. I always wipe it off as best I can before scanning. After your comment, I tried cleaning it again to no avail. As to knowing what's going on, the naturalist on our whalewatching boat had been doing this for about ten years and had only seen this behavior in action one other time. So I think that this may be the best image that we get for a while. Thanks for your thoughts.--Eva bd 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was hoping someone else would reply here to give you a better idea of whether to nominate it at Featured Pictures. I'm not going to second it, but it would be perfectly appropriate for you to nominate it yourself. Enuja (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your thoughts. I'll leave this question up here, or else ask some other regulars at the featured picture page for their opinions. We'll see if anyone else comes up with anything.--Eva bd 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll comment simply because you've requested more opinions. Personally I think you've chosen well - this is the best of the images you've put up, the ones with the boats just lose the appeal, as well as suffering from too much glare off the water. With this image it is good, and it would be great to get a really good picture of this behaviour. However, to me it's a bit dark, which I've noticed often happens when scanning photos, but that could be improved with a bit of editing. The filesize to me is ridiculously large; 12.5MB? Really this should come in under 2MB easily. It also worries me that it appears a bit cutoff at the sides; now it looks like you've captured almost all the action, which unfortunately makes it look like you've just missed framing it perfectly, which will therefore serve as a negative. That may well be incorrect however, and there could be heaps more action going on out the sides. Hmmm. Also as Enuja said it is hard to actually make out what is going on - so while I have no doubt when you say they are bubble-netting, and that does indeed look like what's going on, it is hard to actually get a real feel for this from the photo (especially for anyone that doesn't already know what bubblenetting is). Re cleaning your scanner, I personally just use ordinary window cleaner (sprayed onto a paper towel, not directly onto the scanner). And if you upload a version with a more reasonable filesize I'd be willing to take a go at lightening it a bit and doing a bit of a cleanup if you think you want to nominate. With a cleanup, encyclopaedic value may outweigh the other concerns. --jjron 08:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the added comments, jjron. I will see if I can figure out how to get the scan a little bit smaller. I'm definitely not a technological (or photographic) wiz, but I'll see what I can do. If you're still willing to take a stab at editing after I've finished shrunk it down, I'd appreciate it. Thank you again.--Eva bd 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've done a bit of a play on the downsampled version of the image. There was a bit of a tilt that I've fixed up, brightened it a bit, and cropped to what I think is a stronger focus (given it was clipped at both sides anyway). I could probably do a bit better job with a bigger original and a bit more time. See what you think. (BTW, if you have Photoshop, I can give you some very simple instructions on reducing the filesize.). --jjron 13:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the added comments, jjron. I will see if I can figure out how to get the scan a little bit smaller. I'm definitely not a technological (or photographic) wiz, but I'll see what I can do. If you're still willing to take a stab at editing after I've finished shrunk it down, I'd appreciate it. Thank you again.--Eva bd 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll comment simply because you've requested more opinions. Personally I think you've chosen well - this is the best of the images you've put up, the ones with the boats just lose the appeal, as well as suffering from too much glare off the water. With this image it is good, and it would be great to get a really good picture of this behaviour. However, to me it's a bit dark, which I've noticed often happens when scanning photos, but that could be improved with a bit of editing. The filesize to me is ridiculously large; 12.5MB? Really this should come in under 2MB easily. It also worries me that it appears a bit cutoff at the sides; now it looks like you've captured almost all the action, which unfortunately makes it look like you've just missed framing it perfectly, which will therefore serve as a negative. That may well be incorrect however, and there could be heaps more action going on out the sides. Hmmm. Also as Enuja said it is hard to actually make out what is going on - so while I have no doubt when you say they are bubble-netting, and that does indeed look like what's going on, it is hard to actually get a real feel for this from the photo (especially for anyone that doesn't already know what bubblenetting is). Re cleaning your scanner, I personally just use ordinary window cleaner (sprayed onto a paper towel, not directly onto the scanner). And if you upload a version with a more reasonable filesize I'd be willing to take a go at lightening it a bit and doing a bit of a cleanup if you think you want to nominate. With a cleanup, encyclopaedic value may outweigh the other concerns. --jjron 08:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your thoughts. I'll leave this question up here, or else ask some other regulars at the featured picture page for their opinions. We'll see if anyone else comes up with anything.--Eva bd 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was hoping someone else would reply here to give you a better idea of whether to nominate it at Featured Pictures. I'm not going to second it, but it would be perfectly appropriate for you to nominate it yourself. Enuja (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If the crop, tilt correction, and brightening were done to a high resolution version I'd second this nomination. Enuja (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Enuja. I'll try getting a higher resolution image that isn't ridiculously big this weekend. I'll post that here when I'm finished.--Eva bd 15:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Seconder:
- For anyone that is interested, Jjron's edit has been put up as a FPC here. Wish us luck!--Eva bd 19:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
