Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) female Montagne d’Ambre (2).jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) female Montagne d’Ambre (2).jpg, featured[edit]
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=1){kind=link}
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 14:52:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
_juvenile_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre.jpg)
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)- Support A pity for the overexposure of the branch, but I guess you can't do much about it. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z-File:Panther_chameleon_(Furcifer_pardalis)_female_Montagne_d’Ambre_(2).jpg,_fe){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Yann-2019-01-14T17:10:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z){kind=link}
- tweaked a bit. Charles (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T17:43:00.000Z-Yann-2019-01-14T17:10:00.000Z){kind=link}
Oppose Our finest reptile photography includes habitat. What is the point in photographing one in the mountains of Madagascar, when the result looks like a pet in somoene's bedroom? The hard direct flash does it no favours either, resulting in over exposure and loss of three-dimensionality. -- Colin (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Colin-2019-01-14T17:34:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z){kind=link}
Comment Still bearing a grudge from the 'flash can kill a chameleon' discussion. Sad. And of course it's not direct flash. Try looking at the shadow from the tail wrapped around the branch. Of course it's an artifical setting, but that doesn't stop it aspiring to be included in our finest reptile photography. --Charles (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why should I bear a grudge? I seem to recall you got upset with The Photographer. Charles, this does you no favours. I commented on the photo, and I examined our collection of reptile FPs. I said the flash was direct, I didn't claim it was a ring flash. Any flash mounted a few inches from the centre of the camera produces that effect. Please Charles, go look at the link you added to our current FP reptiles. Ambient light, or merely using a little fill-flash would have included some habitat colours, but you went for tiny aperture, low ISO, fast shutter and a whopping big flash at a distance of 1.6m to compensate for your choice of settings. So the wood is blown and the background is lost. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't recall you being with me when I took the picture and your analysis of my camera settings shows a very limited understanding of night-time wildlife photography. I chose to have a blackground. Charles (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Charles, first you transfer your grudge on to me (who has nothing to have a grudge about), then insult me. Your camera settings may well be for a chosen black background, if you say so, but they also required an unnecessarily bright flash to compensate, hence the over-exposed branch. That's basic photography, nature, night-time, or otherwise. My opinion stands, and since you once again seem to be more interested in personal attacks, than photography, I'm unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I propose to lay down the weapons. There are more important things in life than a picture!--Famberhorst (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Charles, first you transfer your grudge on to me (who has nothing to have a grudge about), then insult me. Your camera settings may well be for a chosen black background, if you say so, but they also required an unnecessarily bright flash to compensate, hence the over-exposed branch. That's basic photography, nature, night-time, or otherwise. My opinion stands, and since you once again seem to be more interested in personal attacks, than photography, I'm unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T17:42:00.000Z-Colin-2019-01-14T17:34:00.000Z){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Colin-2019-01-14T18:18:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T17:42:00.000Z){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T18:56:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T17:42:00.000Z){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Colin-2019-01-14T19:19:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T18:56:00.000Z){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Famberhorst-2019-01-15T18:41:00.000Z-Colin-2019-01-14T19:19:00.000Z){kind=link}
- Contrary to Colin, I find the back background very good: it helps making the animal standing apart. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Yann-2019-01-15T13:13:00.000Z-Colin-2019-01-14T17:34:00.000Z){kind=link}
- Oppose I would support this for the style which is similar to my still life photos, but the lack of sharpness and therefore definition of its features, especially on the head, and the out of focus areas, are too much. All this is visible even without zooming in to 100 %. – LucasT 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support I don't mind the overexposure on the branch as that is not the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Daniel Case --Llez (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Lucasbosch-2019-01-14T18:21:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Daniel_Case-2019-01-16T04:54:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Llez-2019-01-19T22:06:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-MZaplotnik-2019-01-20T13:28:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-S._DÉNIEL-2019-01-21T15:38:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-King_of_Hearts-2019-01-22T03:46:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z){kind=link}
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Johann_Jaritz-2019-01-23T10:34:00.000Z-Charlesjsharp-2019-01-14T14:52:00.000Z){kind=link}
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
_female_Montagne_d%E2%80%99Ambre_(2).jpg#c-Ikan_Kekek-2019-01-23T22:55:00.000Z-File:Panther_chameleon_(Furcifer_pardalis)_female_Montagne_d’Ambre_(2).jpg,_fe){kind=link}
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles
_female_Montagne_d’Ambre_(2).jpg&oldid=489573782){kind=link}