Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dried mushrooms

Dried mushrooms[edit]

Reason: Nice shot of a collection of dried mushrooms. It would be hard to do the "single fruit and cross section" shot for a dried mushroom, as they are already sliced, but this does well illustrate dried mushrooms, and looks good at high resolution (even if the resolution isn't massive). It's already featured on Commons. Also, while I'm here, I'll just slide in some spam- valued picture candidates could do with more nominations and comments, so feel free to head over there, comment and nominate.
Articles this image appears in: Edible mushroom, drying (food)
Creator: Aka

Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I don't think all mushrooms would be dried out this way for eating, so EV seems weaker, but acceptable. Quality seems nice. A bit soft in the back but that's par for the course with macro photography. Fletcher (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, certainly it's not uncommon to see dried mushrooms in Asian shops. Just because it doesn't apply to all mushrooms is not a real reason to doubt EV. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a species ID here? I notice that this was from the time COM:FPC wasn't too rigorous on these things. MER-C 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I would personally guess they were Boletus edulis, but I'm certainly not an expert. A few people seem to think they are chanterelles on Talk:Cantharellus, but I doubt that myself. I have contacted the author on Commons, and will leave a message at the fungi project. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now fairly sure they are Boletus edulis- there aren't many species that would be available commercially, and these are clearly pored (rather than gilled) and in the traditional mushroom shape. That would seem to rule out chanterelles or the button mushroom, which are an unusual shape and gilled respectively. Also, top center would suggest the stipes are thicker at the bottom, which would be consistent with a Boletus species. Briefly looking through the species we have listed on edible mushroom, there doesn't seem to be much else it could be... However, I would reccomend waiting for someone more knowledgable than myself to take a guess. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a look at this. Admittedly, they are fresher, but the shapes are very similar. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not hugely sharp, low res. Looking at images of some of the possible IDs above I get the impression that the contrast has been turned up too much. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not especially high res for a staged shot. Contrast seems too high. Not very high EV either. Kaldari (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]