Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stoney Creek Frog

Stoney Creek Frog

Stoney Creek Frog, in breeding male colouration

Alternative

I know many people here do not like flash photography, and usually for good reason. The reasons usually being: glare and colour accuracy. This photo, however has very little glare, and the colour is accurate. This is a very beautiful frog, and although common, is rarely seen or heard by most people, as they have no vocal sac, and are nocturnal. ; Appears in Stoney Creek Frog. --liquidGhoul 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. - liquidGhoul 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Not bad, but I'm not "wowed"... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey liquidGhoul, I actually thought the same as you when I first saw this one. Awe-inspiringly beautiful. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support not bad, but a bit on the small side. chowells 11:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just uploaded another. It is larger, and has a less distracting background. :) --liquidGhoul 12:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad but insufficient for FP status Calderwood 16:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, but then again, I'm a sucker for frogs. Good composition and I have no problem with the size. I like the original picture better than the alternative, by the way. Swilk 04:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As do I, I love the toes on the first one. --liquidGhoul 10:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I've never been a fan of artificial lighting. enochlau (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me why? How does it detract from this image? --liquidGhoul 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just don't feel that harsh unnatural lighting goes well with pictures of natural things, like frogs. enochlau (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"harsh" suggests that the photo is overexposed and "unnatural" suggests that the colour accuracy is wrong, both of which are not true. So I just don't understand what you mean. --liquidGhoul 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, agree with Calderwood. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very nice picture of a very nice frog. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not striking enough.--ragesoss 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]