Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:20070818-0001-strolling reindeer.jpg

Image:20070818-0001-strolling reindeer.jpg, featured edit

Original: Fixed:

Original voting, featured edit

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 16:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nattfodd 16:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it is a good picture. It has everything : an interesting subject, a nice depth of field, but unfortunately I need the taxonomical name to support it. If the species name be included, I would change my vote to a support. Freedom to share 17:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I even categorized it under the right genus, but forgot to add it to the description. Should be fixed now, sorry. --Nattfodd 18:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support As promised :) Freedom to share 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Richard Bartz 19:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Seeder 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 13:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Support --Böhringer 20:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overcontrasted (or only overexposed?), average technical detail. --Beyond silence 01:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although there's no actual overexposure, if you check the histogram in Photoshop, the background does seem very washed out while the animal doesn't. Sorry, but the image doesn't look natural to me. --MichaelMaggs 07:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What, are you insinuating that he pasted the reindeer onto the background?!...Only kidding. Vladsinger 02:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come to think of it, I don't know what MichaelMaggs means either... This certainly is not a photomontage, nor a heavily retouched picture. I have just done some levels and curves from the raw file. --Nattfodd 09:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't 'insinuating' anything, but the image as it appears here does have a washed-out-looking background, probably because of the harsh lighting you mentioned below. Maybe some selective work on that in Photoshop would help. --MichaelMaggs 20:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree. Though the composition is great, the quality of the picture is not good enough - Alvesgaspar 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What specific "bad quality" are you refering to? The reindeer is sharp and well contrasted to the background. The lighting was pretty harsh when I took this shot (one of the rare sunny moments on the hike) and this is the colour of the vegetation on the slopes of Mt Kebnekaise. I really don't get what the criticism is all about. --Nattfodd 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are two criticisms: one concerning the washed out background and the other the animal itself, which is somehow fuzzy and with poor detail. - Alvesgaspar 20:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally love the picture keep up the good work. -- GodDennis 05:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. -- Lycaon 12:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems to me that the camera was panning which results in that object/background separation because none of the foreground or background seems to be in-focus. Not perfectly sharp, but an impressive image of a moving animal :-) --Tony Wills 11:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed version, not featured edit

Comment Here comes a version with less washed-out background. I'm not completely sure it's really better than the original, but it's at least a good occasion to change the name... --Nattfodd 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
SupportTiago Vasconcelos 16:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. That is better, but Alvesgaspar's other point remains valid. --MichaelMaggs 06:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnaturally dark. Looks strange. Freedom to share 08:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to be kidding me! --Nattfodd 08:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness. --Beyond silence 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think detail is lost, the original is better --Tony Wills 11:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination No point in having both versions featured, and it wasn't going to happen anyway. --Nattfodd 20:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: withdrawn => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 21:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]