Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodylus acutus mexico 08.jpg

File:Crocodylus acutus mexico 08.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2008 at 19:19:59

Info created, uploaded andnominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taken in swamp at La Manzanilla, Jalisco, Mexico -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture rocks. So live and dynamic. Like an action-movie sequence. --Lošmi (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting angle --Herrick (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an IP I can't vote, but I have to say that the crop is horrible. Great work otherwise.202.12.233.23 08:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great subject, however not a great composition and a bit too much noise for me. - Relic38 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition, setting and light, but i wish the eyes of the crocodyle would be sharp too and not only the nose --Simonizer (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition + only front part of the head is in focus -- Gorgo (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow is there (both in thumb as in full size) but technically per your own comments. Lycaon (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Lycaon, I stand by those comments... however, we are talking about two different situations, that a knowledgeable and discerning observer can easily identify. The comments that you allude to are for a particular picture and the comments are valid within the context of that image. Just to illustrate you, if that could be possible, would be to mention first of all that the angle of view is different in both pictures. In this particular image, the angle of view is much lower, which means that the elements of the image are positioned much further away in relation to each other, thus making the DOF issue more difficult. Another point would be that obviously the main point of interest in this particular case are the crocodyle's teeth, and not the eyes, they are positioned in a much better place than the eyes, and they cover an area much larger than the eyes, I would say that the ratio is about 50 to 1 maybe? So to sacrifice critical focus to an object of that ratio would be stupid, for lack of a better word. So therefore the natural choice is to assure good detail in the main area of interest. I've never heard that people are impressed by crocodyle's eyes, have you? What impresses people are their jaws and teeth, which just happens to be the point of discussion and one of the central parts of this image. In the other image that you allude to, no teeth or jaws are present, therefore the criteria is different. Photography is much like music, where sounds fade in and out, with different volume, rythm, melody, etc., etc. In photography, like in music, focus fades in and out and it is the overall interaction of in focus and out of focus elements that make the visual music of a photograph. If in music all the sounds were to have the same intensity, tone and volume it would just be a lot of noise. Everything in focus in a photograph could lead to a lot of visual noise. So you say that you oppose based on a criteria that I myself set forth for another image... is that really the real reason? What happened to your own criteria? We both know (and many others) what the real reason is. Cheers!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]