Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.08.24.-05-Mannheim Rheinau--Mauereidechse.jpg

File:2014.08.24.-05-Mannheim Rheinau--Mauereidechse.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2015 at 17:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Lacertidae_.28True_lizards.29
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a good example of a portrait of an animal in its natural surroundings without bokeh. There is a degree of blurring in part of the picture frame because of the primary focus being on the lizard, but everything is visible and part of the picture. I might prefer for the lower right corner to be more in focus, but I'm willing to accept the picture as is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, what makes it effective as a portrait of the animal in its natural environment also dooms it as an FP, for reasons I've gone into on other nominations—the background is too much of a distraction and the animal (as it intends to) blends into it. It's definitely a VI and probably a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that a picture of an animal in its surroundings is per se not featurable, because you take it as a deficient portrait of an animal instead of viewing the composition as a whole and treating it as a "Landscape with Lizard"? If so, that's quite a different aesthetic than that of landscape paintings, in which there may be human or animal subjects in the painting, but the natural surroundings aren't blurred so as to have a singular focus on the human beings (or dogs or sheep or whatever). I haven't read your previous statements about this, so pardon me if I'm misunderstanding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that I don't mean to suggest you are "wrong", only to understand your aesthetics and criteria. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking for clarification. No, I don't think that pictures of animals in their natural surroundings are inherently unfeaturable. It's just that the details of the environment included are on many occasions at odds with an image that meets the FP aesthetic criteria. Especially when the animal's camouflage or whatever is shown to be partially working ... an image where the putative subject blends into the background is going to be one where you have a hard time seeing the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I might even agree with you if the camouflage were so effective I really had trouble seeing the animal, such as would be the case with a leaf insect. In this case, I think the contrast is sufficient for the lizard to be pretty easily visible, but I definitely understand your point of view. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's a fine photo, however, I agree with some of the criticism stated above. --Tremonist (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nothing wrong with a "Landscape with Lizard" or "Lizard with natural environment" per se. That can work very well, and I think we should have much more of those (I know: probably impossible for shy lizards). ~~But as an image as a whole, this one doesn't "wow" me.~~ --El Grafo (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine you have made a large print of this picture and this animal within this plants is looking in your eyes. Then you will see how beautiful it is and you will say "wow". I don't say that because it is my picture. I call it computer-monitor-blindness. --Hockei (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think this would be better as a horizontal composition rather than square, and with the lizard more close-up, especially as his position and look toward the camera is very nice. He just gets a bit lost in the middle there. INeverCry 23:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm really frustrated by the opposition to this photo, as I consider it a good composition and I feel like the rest of you (maybe all of you) prefer photos that merely document a creature clearly and blur everything in the middleground and background unnaturally for that purpose. I don't expect to convince anyone with my comment, but I'm blowing off steam here because of the number of photos of the type I describe that come in for so much praise and support here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek, I think you are right to challenge when you think reviewers are being too conservative in their thinking or stuck only thinking a certain kind of image is best or are perhaps just following a fashion. Sometimes, perhaps, a more unusual arrangement is more difficult to pull off successfully. The professional photographers make it look easy, but their failure-rate is high too. Reviewers can also be wildly inconsistent yet more likely to defend what they wrote than reconsider it. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good points here and also in your review below. A photo of this lizard on rocks would probably have more contrast. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This lizard is way too cool looking to be placed dead center in a composition that's 80% foliage. INeverCry 02:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed crop. --Hockei (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You should ping everyone who already commented, to see what they think of the picture now, with the new crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the hint. --Hockei (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like this new crop a lot more. The lizard looks like he's posing, and the foliage now frames him and is more clearly of secondary importance as it should be. INeverCry 07:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do, too. I'm not sure I agree that the foliage is of such secondary importance for the composition, given the way I move my eye around the picture frame; I just think the composition is better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complimentary is probably closer to what I mean. INeverCry 08:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And as you said, with very good framing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case, Medium69, and El Grafo: Maybe you have fun to take a second review because of the new crop? --Hockei (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too many things are not going in this picture, and cropping does not change it enough. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BAM! Works so much better now for me, I could actually imagine hanging a print of it on my wall. Not totally convinced quality-wise (general sharpness in the head area), but I've struck my oppose above. Thanks for pinging me. --El Grafo (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support yes, now it fits for me. --Hubertl 11:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough in focus for me, particularly the nose. Charles (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the difficulty taking such a photo with long telephoto. According to the WP article, the natural habitat is rocky (hence the name) so am not sure this is the best background. The image seems a bit too bright for me. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Too bad. All people who see the print version are fascinated of it. I cannot comprehend the opposers. Also it's a pity that (in generally here) two or three people have apparently another reasons for giving negative votes than the picture itself (Seek and you will find). Thanks. --Hockei (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]