Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2010 at 13:14:01 (UTC)
Original - a frog (exact species unknown, facing right, to the upper left of the nearly-vertical stick in the rightmost third of the image) is nearly impossible to see among a clutter of dead leaves.
Reason
A very high-resolution image. Aesthetic value is so-so unless you like dead leaves, but educational value is quite high as a stunning example of crypsis. Honestly, I couldn't see the frog until I looked at the highlighted image.
Support as nominator --DS (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The image is currently only used in a gallery. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the images around; the lizard was too easy to see and thus not the best example. DS (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I'm afraid I still have to oppose, per the reasoning below. A cool picture, but not really FP material. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The date at the bottom should be cropped. --I'ḏ♥One 14:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - cannot support until that is removed. gazhiley.co.uk 14:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the harsh lighting. Also, the frog is extremely difficult to see, so should be presented with some sort of clear identification (possibly another pic alongside it in the article) to aid readers. Jujutaculartalk 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The frog is tiny in the picture. I'm not sure I'd be able to see it even if it weren't camoflaged. It should be cropped a bit closer at least. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The frog makes up what, 3% of the pixels of the photo? The reason I couldn't find the thing at first was because of the expectation I had on size. I'd support a photo of this type of frog in this type of environment, but not when it's so damn small and makes up so little of the photograph. In it's current state, this is a Where's Waldo. upstateNYer 03:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Great image, amazing camouflage. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Per all above, mostly the fact that if the image was cropped correctly to show the frog and not just a pile of leaves, then it would d be nowehere near upto standards. JFitch(talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Featured Picture of the Day shouldn’t be Where’s Waldo. Greg L (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Brilliant example of camouflage. But should be cropped a little closer. rivergod
Oppose Very harsh lighting, and I fear many ordinary Wikipedia users just take a quick peek at TFP, and they would consider this to be 'just a pile of leaves'. WackyWaceconverse | contribs 13:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FPs should not be confusing. Without even a caption with the to reduce the confusing is not worth bothering. The object shown here isn't even in the center of the image. Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted 6 supports to 9 opposed. --I'ḏ♥One 15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
