56:
34:
188:
All 20 types are pretty different. One possibility is treating a new version as a panorama - taking hardcore macro images and then stitching them together. Matching the backgrounds would become a problem though, and one might have to just set it to white, and make the thing more of an illustration.
151:
shells, many look almost identical (especially in thumb size). I think a better image would contain only a few, say, four to six, very different shells, seen in much greater detail. I'd like to compare the striations and ruffled edges really close up! So, since you could do better, I give a No Go on
242:
Subject is very nice and has good encyclopedic value, but the photo has problems. White background distracts from the subject. Something dark and diffuse would be better. Lighting is messed up by highlights: a diffuse source would probably help. Also, since there are no actual paired shells,
111:
Ah this is kind of interesting. I assume you are referring to the background. What looks like noise is actually texture on the surface I photographed them on (anodized aluminum). I'll make an alternative version in which the appearance of noise is reduced.
63:
I feel this is an aesthetic image that shows the diversity of form capable within a single species, a concept that is critical for evolution by natural selection. Plus, shells are pretty. The image appears in the
218:
Doubt much can be done about the reflections. The shells are shiny, and I only have point sources. Doesn't seem like it's worth sinking much effort into a re-shoot. Does anyone think otherwise?
27:
165:
What would you think if there were the same number, but the image was much larger, i.e. 3x larger on each axis? or does your concern about too many shells also arise in the thumbnail?
98:. I really like the idea and it has great encyclopedic value, but there's too much noise in the picture for me to support. I may change my vote as input from other users comes in. --
147:. Good illustration of phenotypes. Yes, the original background "grain" is very distracting. The edit is better in that respect, but still suffers from there being
333:
207:. Is it just me or does it seem like its taken at a slight angle? Also can the lighting used be improved? there are reflectiosn on some of the shells. -
17:
243:
don't present them arranged in pairs. If you could do a less slanted, more uniform grid that would be good. I encourage you to try again.
47:
show high variability in their shell pigmentation and patterning. This illustrates the concept of phenotypic variability, a perequisite for
319:
295:
273:
256:
247:
230:
213:
193:
183:
169:
160:
139:
116:
106:
90:
314:
179:
Not bad, could be better per Janke. I'd say about ten shells would be good, six are too few (IMHO). |
288:
287:, I think it would be worth trying to recreate this with imrpovements, mabye try something more like
133:
129:
224:
What are you using for lighting? Simple things like a bedsheet can be used to change lighting. -
292:
157:
327:
310:
253:
225:
219:
208:
190:
180:
166:
113:
87:
75:
55:
33:
270:
244:
153:
100:
71:
48:
305:
126:. I'd still like to see a little more noise reduction in the background.
38:
66:
54:
42:
32:
204:
269:
My mistake, I couldn't see that the left ones were concave.
252:
They are paired - inside and outside of same individual
74:
articles. Shells collected, imaged and uploaded by me
203:
I like the topic but for some reason the picture is
8:
291:(one half of the shell/black background?).--
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
59:Edit with background texture reduction.
7:
334:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
231:15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
214:01:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
194:18:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
184:13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
170:22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
161:08:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
140:07:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
117:04:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
107:04:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
91:02:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
320:10:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
296:01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
274:23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
257:22:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
248:21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
350:
60:
52:
58:
51:by natural selection.
36:
28:Phenotypic variation
37:Individuals of the
61:
53:
318:
229:
212:
341:
308:
228:
211:
136:
103:
349:
348:
344:
343:
342:
340:
339:
338:
324:
323:
134:
101:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
347:
345:
337:
336:
326:
325:
302:Not promoted
299:
298:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
262:
261:
260:
259:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
198:
197:
196:
174:
173:
172:
152:this one... --
142:
121:
120:
119:
93:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
346:
335:
332:
331:
329:
322:
321:
316:
312:
307:
303:
297:
294:
290:
286:
283:
282:
275:
272:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
258:
255:
251:
250:
249:
246:
241:
238:
232:
227:
223:
222:
221:
217:
216:
215:
210:
206:
202:
199:
195:
192:
187:
186:
185:
182:
178:
175:
171:
168:
164:
163:
162:
159:
155:
150:
146:
143:
141:
138:
137:
132:
131:
125:
122:
118:
115:
110:
109:
108:
105:
104:
97:
94:
92:
89:
85:
82:Nominate and
81:
80:
79:
77:
76:user:debivort
73:
69:
68:
57:
50:
46:
44:
40:
35:
29:
26:
19:
301:
300:
284:
239:
200:
177:Weak Support
176:
148:
144:
128:
127:
123:
99:
95:
83:
65:
62:
41:
240:Weak Oppose
201:Weak oppose
145:Weak oppose
72:phenotype
49:evolution
45:variablis
328:Category
315:contribs
254:Debivort
226:Ravedave
220:Debivort
209:Ravedave
191:Debivort
181:AndonicO
167:Debivort
149:too many
114:Debivort
88:Debivort
285:Comment
130:Nautica
124:Abstain
96:Neutral
84:support
39:bivalve
135:Shades
271:Dgies
245:Dgies
154:Janke
67:Donax
43:Donax
16:<
311:talk
293:Peta
289:this
158:Talk
102:Tewy
86:. -
70:and
306:KFP
205:meh
330::
313:|
304:--
156:|
78:.
317:)
309:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
