Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eastern-Bearded-Dragon-2.2,-Vic,-3.1.2008.jpg
Eastern Bearded Dragon (Pogona barbata) edit
- Reason
- Clear, sharp, well composed image of this lizard, which clearly shows the key features of the species.
- Articles this image appears in
- Eastern Bearded Dragon
- Creator
- jjron
- Support as nominator jjron (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I really can't decide whether this has enough going for it. I would like to appeal to people not to oppose on DOF grounds, as IMO the shallow focus is eye-catching and the angle, which would have made it impossible to get the whole beast in focus, is good and encyclopedic for this species. Nonetheless, my niggling doubts concern the parts which should be in super-sharp focus (around the face and eye in particular) and which aren't quite there. I'd change to support if it made a difference to promotion, as it really adds great value to the article. --mikaultalk 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW this was taken in pretty low light - 80mm zoom at 1/15s and ISO800. The DOF isn't high, but in those conditions I had to have it pretty wide open at f4. I used a fill flash, but didn't want to just blast away with full flash. I think the focus is fine, but it was fully hand-held, so there may therefore be some slight camera shake, which may have affected the super-sharpness you mention. We can't always shoot in ideal conditions. --jjron (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment iirc a previous nomination of a similar image (maybe by Fir?) failed because of DOF issues - the tail was out of focus. This one doesn't even show the tail, which in my analysis means the earlier image should have precedence over this one. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fir's nomination of this species did fail, but it was nothing to do with DOF - see here. Only two people commented on the focus of the tail in their vote, and they both Supported. Fir's nom was an entirely different 'above' view; both are useful and encyclopaedic for different reasons, but they also mean different things for what is captured in an image. Please don't condemn a nomination through incorrect comparison to previous noms. --jjron (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly Samsara is referring to this nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bearded dragon --Fir0002 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fir's nomination of this species did fail, but it was nothing to do with DOF - see here. Only two people commented on the focus of the tail in their vote, and they both Supported. Fir's nom was an entirely different 'above' view; both are useful and encyclopaedic for different reasons, but they also mean different things for what is captured in an image. Please don't condemn a nomination through incorrect comparison to previous noms. --jjron (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support DOF doesn't bother me, well-composed and sharp on the head. Clegs (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Upload an edit that crops out the dead space on the left, and bumps the exposure (via the curves) a third or half stop and I may support. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. As already hinted, this image by Fir had more tail, and had reasonable support. Maybe it should be nominated. (btw, Fir's preferred image in that earlier nom is a good example of the bokeh problem, see talk). I'd therefore oppose this nomination, in which the tail is not visible at all, and from the background, looks like a captive animal, whereas Fir's seems wild. Samsara noadmin (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, no, I don't believe that first image you linked to was ever nominated, so how did it have 'reasonable support'? Also apparently the dragons in Fir's pics you've linked to are juveniles, while mine is an adult - compare the spikes and 'beard' which are only just developing on Fir's, but are very distinct on mine. This isn't just a surreptitious application of your personal full body shots policy is it? --jjron (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because Fir mentioned it as part of his nomination of another image taken at the same time, linked above. Samsara noadmin (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- But it wasn't even offered as an alternative in any of his noms. --jjron (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad you finally understand. Samsara noadmin (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- But it wasn't even offered as an alternative in any of his noms. --jjron (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because Fir mentioned it as part of his nomination of another image taken at the same time, linked above. Samsara noadmin (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, no, I don't believe that first image you linked to was ever nominated, so how did it have 'reasonable support'? Also apparently the dragons in Fir's pics you've linked to are juveniles, while mine is an adult - compare the spikes and 'beard' which are only just developing on Fir's, but are very distinct on mine. This isn't just a surreptitious application of your personal full body shots policy is it? --jjron (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the picture. It's well done. Anyhow the DOF could be better. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support I like the detail on the upper part. Muhammad(talk) 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone else close this? It looks like a Promotion, but I'm not really comfortable promoting my own image. --jjron (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Eastern-Bearded-Dragon-2.2,-Vic,-3.1.2008.jpg --Chris.B 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
