Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Backlit mushroom.jpg

Didn't see any Mushroom picts, so I am submitting this one. I think it is reasonably clear, and illustrates the lamellae pretty well. This is my first upload to wikipedia, please tell me how it should be improved! This picture does not appear in any article yet (is this a requirement?).

• Nominate and support. - Eraticus 10:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although fungi are notoriously difficult to photograph, I do agree we should at least have a few
  fruiting bodies featured. This shot appeals because of the unusual use of sunlight to show the lamellae. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Interesting use of backlighting to show structures in the mushroom. enochlau (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-- Chris 73 | Talk 17:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Striking and illustrative. Circeus 18:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Image currently does not illustrate any article. Circeus 18:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure a suitable article can be found. I know nothing about mushrooms, so I'll leave it to someone who knows what type of mushroom this is and who can write an informative caption. Raven4x4x 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Image now on
  Gill (mushroom)
  , which is not much of an article.
• support. - fascinating. why is it translucent though? I'd love to see it from the top.--Deglr6328 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mushroom was actually quite small--less than 2 inches high, and was translucent to the Sun, but only from below. From above it appeared as a "normal" white mushroom. --72.234.136.133 09:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• support. wow. its great and I like it and I even have a fungi phobia. pschemp | talk 08:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, even though depth of focus could be slightly better... --Janke | Talk 08:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Great use of back lighting, is informative and simply stunning. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - it's a good pic, but I think that the dullness of the background and the darkness of the pic overall distracts too much. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Points taken. What sort of background would improve the image?--Eraticus 09:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ACK Flcelloguy. Also I don't like the composition. Could use some cropping. --Dschwen 17:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ( − ) Oppose I don't find it very interesting --Fir0002 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Sometimes there isn't enough background and sometimes too much. Doesn't that seem a bit... too subjective? —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support amazing. I never thought a shroom could look so beautiful. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is a nice picture! --Wingchi 17:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice picture artisticly, but what is it meant to illustrate? Mushroom Gills better illustrated by other photo. Species is unknown. —Pengo 23:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you. The other photo at
    Gill does a better job in illustrating the Mushroom morphology. My photo is less 'encyclopedic'. --Eraticus 19:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Promoted Image:Backlit mushroom.jpg Raven4x4x 08:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]