Wiki How:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tubal Pregnancy with embryo.jpg

Nominate because it is a beautiful and rare image of a developing human. Also very informative caption, highly detailed, great quality image.

Used in:Fetal development

Photograph by Ed Uthman, MD.

• Nominate and support. - DO11.10 19:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this image now represents the "larger version".

• Oppose A bit small - and maybe not so rare after all. Wish we could get Lennart Nilsson´s images with a free license... --Janke | Talk 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though the size is a bit small the resolution is great. A spectacular image no matter what the size it. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A great capture, very encyclopedic! My only gripe is the noise-- if it could be touched up, it'd near-perfect! Jellocube27 04:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very informative picture. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if only for the caption. If I had my way, all captions would be as informative as that one. I want to know everything about who what when where and why the photo was taken so that I can get as much as possible out of it. You would never see photos in textbooks or scientific journals with captions like we have on our FPs. Its something good to strive for.--Niro5 15:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Unortunately small, but it is too encyclopedic to oppose. NauticaShades 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Simply one of the most awe inspiring picture on Wikipedia! Caption needs a bit fixing though and the noise needs to be reduced. =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from original photographer: Much thanks to all who have commented. I have taken the critique to heart and re-scanned the original 2001 Ektachrome transparency at higher resolution (1874x2000), then tried to reduce the noise (actually original film grain) in Photoshop. The upgraded image is now on my Flickr site at <http://www.flickr.com/photos/euthman/304334264/>. The image is still public domain, as are all my specimen images. I'm not sure if the upgrade delivers any more detail, as the original scan was pretty much at (or above) the resolution of my klooged macrophotography rig. (This is a really tiny embryo!) However, it does have smoother gradations, and the colors are more true-to-life.--Euthman 15:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! Support large version, which I uploaded from Flickr to Wiki. I took the liberty to adjust the levels slightly - the image had grayish blacks. --Janke | Talk 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Janke for the color adjustment and the upload, you beat me to it by mere moments. I think that the second version is better, and looks really good at a small size, such as would be used in an article. I would like to replace the first image with the second, but I am unsure whether that is the proper protocol?? Could someone with more knowledge of the process let me know what to do? Also, I must be missing what specifically needs work in the caption? Thanks--DO11.10 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd go with WP:BOLD. The pictures are similar enough, with the new one being a clear improvement (IMO). Whats the worst that can happen? A revert. But then you can call us over for help ;-) --Dschwen 09:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. The image shown on this page is the HIGH resolution image.
• support large version amazing free source image. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new version. Thanks a bunch for the rescan and making such a picture PD! --Dschwen 09:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --WS 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks for your great work. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Yarnalgo 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Tubal Pregnancy with embryo.jpg Raven4x4x 06:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]