Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Canis mesomelas.jpg

Image:Canis mesomelas.jpg, featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Lycaon, you forgot to support the image yourself.--Mbz1 00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Neutral I like the photo, but I find the DOF a bit distracting because the background transitions from blurred to sharp right around the jackal, which make some of the twigs around it sharp while others that a right next to them blurry. (This also affects parts of the jackal itself.) Also, the face seems a little blurred, although that could probably fixed with some editing. <~K_ULSHRAX~> 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Support On second thought, when you compare this to other mammal featured pictures, this one is excellent in comparative quality. In fact, it seems as if some of the others should be delisted if more pictures like this should come along. <~K_ULSHRAX~> 10:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support great photo, although not sure if its my monitor but seems a bit lacking in brightness/saturation. Also I agree with kulshrax, the face is slightly blurry. But these things are secondary. How did you get so close to a wild coyote? -psylexic

It's a matter of luck, I guess, as with most pictures taken in the wild. You just have time to take a few snaps before it runs, and you hope there is a least one good one ;). There is very often no time to fidget with ISO's, DOF's or white balances... I'm already very happy if the right lens for the job is on my camera, and the car window is down! BTW, it is not a coyote but a black-backed jackal, in Etosha, Namibia. Lycaon 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose good picture. But focus is sadly on the back of the animal and not on the face --Simonizer 07:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Snapshot level. Motionblur on the cute face. --Bergwolf 10:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support The quality is just barely good enough at 2MP, so I must support. -- Ram-Man 13:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose face is out of focus --che 14:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaD | Michael Apel 15:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support It's big enough that what slight bluriness exists wouldn't be visible in a downsample well within the FP requirements. But why downsample when you'd lose detail elsewhere? Adam Cuerden 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The hairs on the back are in sharper focus than the face and eyes. --MichaelMaggs 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I've been in doubt, but I finally think the focus in the face is good enough. - Keta 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support relevant --Böhringer 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Face is out of focus --Wiki mouse 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support as per Keta -- Klaus with K 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Lycaon 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Makro Freak 19:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured Lycaon 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)