Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asian Elephant 11.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Asian Elephant 11.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2016 at 10:23:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info An Asian elephant enjoying the water at the Melbourne Zoo. Created, uploaded and nominated by SuperJew -- SuperJew (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Support -- SuperJew (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Nice and sharp, but the cropped tusk is very unfortunate and I would also have liked a bit more of the ear, possibly as much as was visible above the water. Tusks also seem a little bit glary (overexposed?) even if the are polished white. Is there a wider crop of this? The wire (electrical?) is not very photogenic either. cart-Talk 11:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- @W.carter: I took this one too (I chose to nominate the one above as it was the only one assessed as QI, even though I nominated them for QI together). No, I don't have a wider crop, sorry. I personally like to get up and close with animal photos, just my style :) --SuperJew (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- @SuperJew: Ok, thank you. Still not too crazy about this (or the other) photo. Sorry. cart-Talk 17:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- @W.carter: I took this one too (I chose to nominate the one above as it was the only one assessed as QI, even though I nominated them for QI together). No, I don't have a wider crop, sorry. I personally like to get up and close with animal photos, just my style :) --SuperJew (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Images of captive animals are acceptable as FP only in very exceptional cases, which is not the case here. This is in no way outstanding. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Question @Uoaei1: Why does the animal being captive or not have any bearing on the photographic quality? --SuperJew (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- @SuperJew: High image quality is a precondition for FPs. But it is not sufficient. FPs have to be outstanding in any way, which is for me usually not the case with captive animals. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Uoaei1: I definitely understand that thought. I didn't understand if you were saying that an elephant in the same pose but in the wild would be outstanding, and if not, why mention that it's captive? --SuperJew (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Some people object to photos of captive animals in principle. However, that aside, they are pretty easy-to-take shots so we have lots of them, compared to close-up photos of genuinely wild animals. And zoos tend to have lots of ugly distracting features like concrete and fences. -- Colin (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- So the issue is the distracting features such as the wire mentioned above and composition/cropping, not the actual fact of captivity. I think voting by principles sounds against neutral-POV. --SuperJew (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've seen a few Zoo shots get FP, but most haven't. The opposes are usually because of unattractive fences, walls, walk-ways, etc, or because there are too many people around, or the animal is lethargic and hard to photograph in an exciting or interesting pose. The other factor is that you usually have a lot of time to set up a shot in a zoo, so the highest technical excellence is expected. In the wild it's understood that a photographer may only have a short period of time to get a shot before the animal runs away or even becomes aggressive and dangerous, so technical errors can sometimes be overlooked. I agree with you that someone who voted against all zoo images by principle would be behaving unfairly. I haven't seen that happen here with any subject in the year or so I've been participating. lNeverCry 06:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- So the issue is the distracting features such as the wire mentioned above and composition/cropping, not the actual fact of captivity. I think voting by principles sounds against neutral-POV. --SuperJew (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Some people object to photos of captive animals in principle. However, that aside, they are pretty easy-to-take shots so we have lots of them, compared to close-up photos of genuinely wild animals. And zoos tend to have lots of ugly distracting features like concrete and fences. -- Colin (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Uoaei1: I definitely understand that thought. I didn't understand if you were saying that an elephant in the same pose but in the wild would be outstanding, and if not, why mention that it's captive? --SuperJew (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- @SuperJew: High image quality is a precondition for FPs. But it is not sufficient. FPs have to be outstanding in any way, which is for me usually not the case with captive animals. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition is not good enough on the left because of cropping --Zcebeci (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop isn't so much of a problem for me, but the background is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. -- Colin (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for the constructive criticism. I'll keep it in mind next time I'm out photographing. I'll withdraw this nomination as it obviously is not FP. --SuperJew (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 22:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
