Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:FL Alligator 1.jpg

Image:FL Alligator 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2008 at 19:19:32

•  Info created by Daniel Schwen - uploaded by Daniel Schwen - nominated by User:AlexanderKlink -- AlexanderKlink (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support. Saw this over at COM:QIC, gave me quite a chill -- AlexanderKlink (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Love crocs! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Fantastic textures. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Georgez (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --JalalV (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support wow! --Lošmi (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose DOF is not sufficient here. That the back of the animal is not in focus is acceptable, but the tip of the snout at least should have been sharp. Borderline case for me as the colours and composition are fine. Lycaon (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Photographig crocs poses a challenge for many reasons. First, they tend to move. Second, one has to use medium to long telephoto, which have an inherent shallow dept of field. Photographers know that from the photographic point of view, when you focus on a particular point, whatever depth of field that is available according to the focal length and the aperture, one third of the critical focus area obtained with that particular aperture will move towards the front, and two thirds will fall back towards the rear. If the critical focus would have been done on the snout, the snout would have looked good, but critical focus would have started to fall off toward the back, the eyes woulf have had a soft focus and the tail would have been really out of focus, the critical focus on the snout would have given us worthless sharp water in front. As it is here, the critical focus was done intelligently around the eyes, thus allowing the focus to fall off gradually into the snout and the back, rendering a very acceptable general sharpness. Composition is great, a very dynamic diagonal, nice texture and simple environment. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is not a croc, but an alligator. Lycaon (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose What is the liquid, in which this poor animal is swimming? Looks like some crude oil distillation product. Aircraft kerosene? Diesel oil? --Karelj (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about?? --Dschwen (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That's the normal color of the mud soup we have for water in the 'glades. ianaré (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • So it was just a drive-by oppose with a useless made-up reason. Not very courteous :-(. --Dschwen (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, sorry for hoke (we have some samples of aircraft petrol in our laboratory now and it looks very similar) but anyway I think, that this image quality is enough for FP. --Karelj (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The focus is on the eye, which is where it should be. Great composition. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose technical excellence as always, but I find the composition a bit too boring for FP. --ianaré (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Ianare. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality and nice wow! Also spooky Muhammad 16:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Imo, DOF is not sufficient, sure there was a practical limit on this, but aperture could go to atleast f/11 without running into diffraction issues if not more. The focus is on the right point and this is a valuable image but the DOF kills it for me sorry. Flying Freddy (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)