Trying to decide between a few different options: Aquatic Animal Tropes

I'm trying to decide what picture I want to put on the brand new Aquatic Animal Tropes index. The general concept I'm looking for is something that includes lots of different types of aquatic animals in one picture.

So far I have two options. Which do you prefer? Or does someone have a better suggestion?

I like the picture on the right better. I think the text on the Nemo picture sort of detracts me from the image.

I found this, but I still think the image on the right is the best.

I like the pic on the right in post one.

I much prefer the picture on the right in post 1 over any of the others suggested, in large part because it includes lots of things that aren't fish.

Agreed.

But this is a wiki about tropes, not about facts about marine life. The picture on the right in the OP suggests bland factual content, which is not what we are about; the picture on the left, in which the animals are in dynamic poses and show personality, suggests a story, i.e. the kind of thing that the tropes on this index would actually be related to. The text is a bit distracting, but on the other hand, I don't think this is a big deal — it doesn't keep the image from being illustrative, and besides, the work the text refers to would likely be an example of many of these tropes.

Edit: It should also actually be possible to remove that text completely. The bottom-most part of it could be cropped; the top part (which would also cut off two of the sharks if it were just cropped away) seems to have a fairly solid background, so it shouldn't be difficult to cover it up without reducing the image's quality.

edited 5th Feb '12 9:24:30 PM by girlyboy

Uh... Okay, that's not a solid colour, there's texturing on that whale in the background that I foolishly didn't notice at first. So here is a very rough, very quick edit that has obvious badness. I think I can make this look a bit better, though — should I go for it, or do people still prefer the image on the right of the OP?

edited 5th Feb '12 9:40:40 PM by girlyboy

I still prefer the one on the right. The page is purely an index, not a trope itself. The only thing the page image needs to illustrate is the general concept of "aquatic animal life"

Are fictional animals included on the page? I see it has Space Whale (which aren't actually aqautic) so would, say, mermaids count?

"I see it has Space Whale (which aren't actually aqautic)"

Dude, Space Is an Ocean. Duh!

Am I the only one who thinks it looks odd that the layer with fishes is bigger than the layer of the background?

So, any more thoughts on this?

Seeing an apparent consensus, I have now put this picture on the page. This can be closed.

Shouldn't we have a crowner for this? There have been objections raised.

Yeah, I'd prefer to have a crowner on this one. I'll set one up.

EDIT: Crowner's hooked.

edited 12th Feb '12 8:09:18 AM by Willbyr

Does anyone know the answer to my question? Fictional animals, do they count or not?

Almost all of these were copypasta from Animal Tropes, so I just went with the apparent existing standard for what qualified something as an Animal Trope.

I see quite a few fictional creatures or fictionalized potrayals of creatures there like Giant Enemy Crab and Shark Man, and the sister indexes like Reptile and Amphibian Tropes include Snake People. I would say a fictional creature counts if it is invoking/based upon a Real Life creature in that category.

edited 12th Feb '12 10:23:51 AM by Catbert

With only one option in the green, and a 2:1 ratio, I think this is ready to call.

Still, if we are going to go with Finding Nemo how about this version of the pic? I upped the brightness and contrast a bit. I think it might be easier to makeout.

EDIT WITHDRAWN

edited 15th Feb '12 5:25:25 AM by Catbert

The crowner option is already replaced by a brightened version.

That's a good image, but why is it so grainy? Is there a higher-resolution version available?

Never mind. I didn't realize that the crowner version had been brightened from what was posted on the forum. My mistake. I'm withdrawing the picture.

Actually I think that change was just recently made. I checked the crowner a day or two ago and it definitely wasn't this brightened version.

... Which I think may be a problem, because a lot of the votes would have been made by people looking at the old, darker version, rather than the brightened version.

The main downside with the brightened version is that the part where I attempted to erase the text is now much more obvious. O_o Ehhh, I should try to fix this. >_<

The graininess can probably be fixed by starting with this version of the original poster instead◊, as it is big and clear.

edited 15th Feb '12 8:25:43 AM by girlyboy

You can see the date/time-stamp on the edits (click book icon). That change was made three days ago, 8 hours after the crowner opening.

edited 15th Feb '12 3:11:42 PM by rodneyAnonymous

If someone wants to take a shot at photo-shopping that picture to get an even better version, that would be nice.