Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Llama on Machu Picchu.jpg

Image:Llama on Machu Picchu.jpg, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Nattfodd 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Need more sharpness for FP. Sorry, at first you may take a try at Commons:Quality images candidates! --Beyond silence 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The llama is perfectly sharp, and the background isn't. This is called shallow depth of field and is a very common way to make the subject (here the llama) pop out. The background isn't the subject in this case, it's just nice that it happens to be the Machu Picchu. --Nattfodd 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment why you are suggesting QI for every picture with technical flaws? QI is not 'lesser FP' - it's used to promote images, which are proper technically. Unsharp pictures aren't. --Leafnode 06:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice, sharp image of animal. Commons needs more of these. Freedom to share 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting shot. I like the shallow DOF. JaGa 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly sharp? You are joking, look around! --Beyond silence 16:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, what isn't sharp in this image)? Please detail or stop the FUD. --Nattfodd 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Support I kind of like the composition - the lama and blured Machu Picchu at background.--Mbz1 17:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support The background is a bit noisy, but the main subject isn't and I really like the composition. Dori - Talk 17:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like the composition and how the body is cropped off. --Digon3 ^talk 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Almost no detail in the head due to too much light (I don't say the highlights are blown, they are not). Also, I find the background a bit distracting, a more neutral one would be better - Alvesgaspar 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral somehow i like this picture. I am not sure if i am totally satisfied with the crop. Is there a uncropped version available?--AngMoKio 20:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is pretty much uncropped, sorry. I've got views of the complete animal (and will probably post them here later) but not with such a nice background (imho). --Nattfodd 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I love the background which helps to locate where this takes place. Good quality also. Benh 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition - It'd be a great shot if it presented whole animal --Leafnode 06:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support For me is head of animal enough good. --Karelj 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral pro: Composition (somehow). Con:crop, noisy BG (oversharpened?). -- Slaunger 20:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis 12:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Great shot, depth of field make the head pop. Composition is great. Acarpentier 02:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I really like the composition --Ben^hello! 12:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose very poor composition. Subject entirely cut-off. -- RedCoat 10:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunate cropping and too 'busy' background. Lycaon 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MartinD 12:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition --Chrumps 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I like it --Ltshears 8:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured -- Cecil 13:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)