The seaman's eyeballs are actually algae - supposed to be the biggest single cell creatures. See Wikipedia.
Back left is a feather duster worm.
My goodness, you learn something new everyday! A lovely series of photo's Timo. Best wishes, Rosa.
Now that is something completely different. At least the worm looked familiar, but the Eyeballs are quite incredible. Thanks Timo; Derek
Thank you for your kind compliments!
Sailor's eyeballs are not really uncommon, but somehow difficult to notice. This pair was special, as most of the the time they seem to be lone.
I'm getting a bit frustrated with the GE reviewers. Of the last dozen or so photos only two were selected at first review and four have been rejected even after second review. Maybe it is because there is no water visible, pictures are too clear to be underwater ones?
Best wishes, Timo
Mielenkiintoiset solut. Vedenalainen maailma on todella ihmeellinen. Hieno kuva!!! LIKE! Happy week and great photographing days!, Joni
noita ihmeitä löytyy joka reissulla uusia. Ei tarvitse ihmetellä pelkästään vanhoja tuttuja. Näitä silmämunia näkee harvoin parittain.
Valitettavasti pitää hiukan kiirettä töissä ja Panoramiolle jää vähemmän aikaa.
Hi Timo, we will never understand the reviewers' criteria. I had thought adding "underwater" to the tags would help, but it does not look like it. C'est la vie......, cheers Derek
Tervehdys Timo Erikoiset "kopekset" kyllä se on tuo merien eliöstö todella lajirikasta ja erikoista.
Like 4 Terveisin-Jaanoz.
Hi Derek, I have a feeling that the reviews are getting more and more a lottery. Is Panoramio getting too popular and reviewers simply have too much work?
Kiitos Jaanoz, nämä ovat siitä kivoja kohteita, että eivät pakene valokuvaajaa. Toisin kuin eräät kalat.
These are cool I watch all the smart channels but you got me here.
Just wondering, Derek and Timo, do you think more of a background is needed for an underwater shot to be accepted otherwise everyone will take pictures of their aquarium fish and just
map them out in the ocean? I'm thinking I could have the only goldfish ever found just off the Antarctic coast.
Hi sGm and Timo; That is a good point sGm and it may help. However, I have many accepted with no background at all. My conclusion is that there are no clear criteria the reviewers are using, and have accepted that some photos will be approved and some not. cheers Derek
It's always been a bit hit-and-miss Derek and like you I just take what I get, actually I don't even map a lot of pictures.
I'm sure there is a loose criteria for acceptance but don't forget that a reviewer is a person looking at picture upon picture for hours on end so decisions will be made on whimsy and I'm sure at times the reviewer will go into an automaton zombie-like state and just go through the motions till their 'shift' is over, hardly looking just clicking yes or no. (not from personal experience).
Thanks Guy and Derek,
I think Guy has a point in his zombie idea. Anyway there are only two two rules for underwater pictures:
technically ok, i.e. not shaken or out of focus etc.
I.e as long as the reviewer recognizes it as an underwater shot, it should be pretty straightforward. Problem probably is that they don't see the water in these very clear pictures!?
Very interesting shot and notes through this thread. Like. Best wishes, Andy
unfortunately this kind of discussion here doesn't help at all making the criteria more clear. But maybe it helps us all feel better.
It is also unfortunate that today there are so many people around Panoramio, that no time is left for decent discussion.
Sign up to comment.
Sign in if you already did it.
Photo taken in Pahang, Malaysia
Misplaced? Suggest new location