Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 19:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Brian Gratwicke - uploaded by me (through File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)) - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Info A very good shot of a critically endangered species of a frog. Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Cute frog, harmonious composition, nice colours, excellent picture. / Achird (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support--H. Krisp (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support--Sasha Krotov (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose harsh flashlight and the resulting strong shadows ruins this pic imo. --mathias K 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just want to note that this species is critically endangered. To my understanding of reading its profile in the IUCN red list website, the species is very rare and there are very few individuals left, and that's what makes the picture so valuable in my eyes. I'm not sure you can say the image is reproducible, so I think quality issues are secondary in this case, or at least less important than usual. Your opinion is your opinion, but I just wanted to share my point of view for a productive discussion. Tomer T (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand the argument with the critically endangered. And yes you are right, this is a very valuable image. But imo this is a very good argument for a VI not for a FP. Especially in this actual case I think the picture quality could have been better if an other equipment would be used. For example a ring flash or maybe a reduced flash power with a little longer exposure. Also the composition with the leaf "in" the eye isn`t the best imo. But it looks like this picture will be promoted anyway so my oppose wont be that bad. ;-) Greetings mathias K 15:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just want to note that this species is critically endangered. To my understanding of reading its profile in the IUCN red list website, the species is very rare and there are very few individuals left, and that's what makes the picture so valuable in my eyes. I'm not sure you can say the image is reproducible, so I think quality issues are secondary in this case, or at least less important than usual. Your opinion is your opinion, but I just wanted to share my point of view for a productive discussion. Tomer T (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support The flash light is a minus. Definitely. Should have used some other illumination system (there are many for frog photography, like a macro ring led flash light). But detail is good, the composition is awesome, and it is an endangered species. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- weak support nice frog. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- It's critically endangered. Why not? TrebleSeven (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support--P0lyzoarium (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Rare picture --Citron (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support --99of9 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support--Alborzagros (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians