Support - Not as sharp or high resolution as I would like, but I think the fact that it is underwater prevents it from excelling in those respects. Mattximus (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Marvellous Spider-Man, good suggestion. Pbsouthwood is an experienced diver, but I'm not sure about his knowledge of u/w photog. May I also respectfully suggest that you review this link to save some time as it may help address some of your questions. There are also comments from experienced u/w divers commenting there. May I also add that I've taught u/w photography for many years (as an advanced open water & NITROX instructor for both NAUI and SSI), if that even matters? Another option is to research Google Images for "longnose batfish" and compare. Atsme📞📧18:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in modern photos, but my impressions are: A. it looks very good, but, B. it's a little on the small size for such photographs. This apparently isn't a particularly small animal, so I'd have liked it a bit bigger, but underwater photography is very challenging, so I'm inclined to Weak support. Adam Cuerden(talk)02:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Adam, this particular baitfish was about 2 or 3 inches from nose to tail, and that's a rough estimate considering things appear 33% larger/closer underwater. Atsme📞📧03:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
(Caveat: I am a notorious perpetrator of "swim-by shooting" photography - I record presence of organisms at a reef, without much concern about artistic value.) That said, I would be delighted to get a photo like this. Educational value is definitely high. Photo quality looks good to me - detail is clear and useful for identification purposes. I will ping Seascapeza, who is a better photographer and fairly expert on marine animals for a further opinion. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 06:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)