Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ara-Zoo-Muenster.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Ara-Zoo-Muenster.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2012 at 06:56:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose A nice photo, but unfortunate light - too much body in shadow. Not as detailed and crisp as I would expect for an FP. --Slaunger (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. You are right with your comment to the light regarding the whole body of the ara. But for me it was especially the light I liked with this animal portrayal. My intention here was not a biological perfect reproduction but a photo accentuating the beautiful head of the Ara (note the light spots on the top and on the beak). --Tuxyso (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Acknowledged. But those nice light spots fill a very small fraction of the entire image space, and the rest of the head is poorly lit. Moreover, due to the large aperture, you have a very shallow depth of field. Only the eye-region of the head is in focus. The crop of the bird does not seem to be well thought through either. A good photo, not FP IMO. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Info Uploaded a new version. You convinced me with the dark areas of the body. Better? I like the DOF here, it is a common style in portraiture, as already said: My idea was not a sterile biological image, but a portrayal. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, the light is better now, and I get the point regarding focusing on the head. I just think the DOF is too shallow to get the entire head in focus. The most protruding part of the head apears to be OOF. --Slaunger (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Acknowledged. But those nice light spots fill a very small fraction of the entire image space, and the rest of the head is poorly lit. Moreover, due to the large aperture, you have a very shallow depth of field. Only the eye-region of the head is in focus. The crop of the bird does not seem to be well thought through either. A good photo, not FP IMO. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. You are right with your comment to the light regarding the whole body of the ara. But for me it was especially the light I liked with this animal portrayal. My intention here was not a biological perfect reproduction but a photo accentuating the beautiful head of the Ara (note the light spots on the top and on the beak). --Tuxyso (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but severe CAs along the body outline, especially at the white feathers in the neck and along the right wing of the Ara, (jpg?)-artefacts in the forehead. --Llez (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination: Although that is one of my favorite photos and I still think it has a special spirit and is a very good portayal of an ara, I see the technical arguments against FP. BTW: The artefacts were ironically caused by CA correction :) Nonetheless I've corrected the issues raised by Llez. Thanks for your comments and your help for improvement. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
