Reason

High-res, hand-masked focus stack. Lit with only natural light to prevent blown highlights.

Articles this image appears in

Ramariopsis kunzei, Ramariopsis

Creator

Kaldari

• Support as nominator -- Kaldari ( talk) 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support - I saw this image while checking its compatibility with DYK, and I must admit that I was very impressed. -- Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) ^{help us!} 02:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support Well done. A little direction to the light would have helped define the shape a bit better imo. Noodle snacks ( talk) 10:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, I know what you mean. The shape gets lost in a couple places due to the lighting. I tried using flash, but I just couldn't get good results. It's a challenge photographing something that is pure smooth white :P Kaldari ( talk) 15:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak support Good lighting and composition but IMO sharpness is not as good. Did you enable mirror lockup? -- Muhammad (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I had the mirror locked. I'm pretty sure it's diffraction softening (and a few spots that are slightly out of the focus plane). I thought at first I might be able to get the whole thing in the focus plane at f/11, but I realized that wasn't the case, so I took 2 shots and stacked them. If I would have shot at f/9 or f/8 it would have been sharper, but I would have had to do more shots for the stack (which probably wouldn't have been possible since the spot of light peeking through the tree cover to illuminate the mushroom soon moved elsewhere). Kaldari ( talk) 15:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support This is probably the best photo I've seen of this fungus online. And such an excellent little article to go with it ! :) Sasata ( talk) 18:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support - Looks good. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 16:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose No sense of scale. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 14:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I don't recall "conveys a sense of scale" being on the featured picture criteria. Kaldari ( talk) 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Not enough encyclopedic value. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 18:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
      • This is the only photograph of any Ramariopsis species on en.wiki or Commons. If it didn't exist, neither Ramariopsis nor Ramariopsis kunzei would have an image at all. Doesn't that count for anything? Kaldari ( talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
        • That's true of a lot of photographs that for good reason never become FPs. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 21:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
          • So in your view "providing scale" is the most important function of images on Wikipedia? Kaldari ( talk) 22:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
            • This is not the place to discuss guideline suggestions. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 23:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support. Technically sound, solid and informative illustration, good composition. Scale seems fairly obvious from the surrounding leaves, I could guess the hight at around 3-5 inches before even reading the article. J Milburn ( talk) 15:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Leaves come in many sizes, and I'll be impressed if someone can give me a convincing ID and size for these half-decayed samples. Certainly not something a casual viewer should be expected to do on their own. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 16:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • As I say, I managed it. No fungal FP has an accurate scale alongside it; unless you're going to call for the delisting of them all, I don't think you have much of an argument here. J Milburn ( talk) 22:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I'm open to that suggestion. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 22:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Is a scale bar even meaningful with a focus stack? Noodle snacks ( talk) 10:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
          • The object doesn't seem particularly deep, so the inaccuracy depending which focus plane you assume would be small or negligible. There are also ways in which you can place a scale so as to suggest which focal depth it's referring to, e.g. place it parallel to the widest "point" of the object depicted, and give an exact measurement (e.g. 4.7cm) instead of a convenient one (such as "2cm", placed in the corner). I'll also just link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) - useful point of reference. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 11:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support. Sufficient quality and EV. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 09:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Promoted File:Ramariopsis kunzei Kaldari 01.jpg-- Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 209 FCs served} 10:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply