Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Antidorcas marsupialis 1.jpg new
Image:Antidorcas marsupialis 1.jpg, not featured edit
Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2008 at 07:28:30
Info Springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) in its natural environment in Etosha, Namibia, created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Distracting background. --Aktron (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)- Oppose As Aktron - backgroung. --Karelj (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, background too distracting. How do you turn this on (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Background distracting. Marlith (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Background shows nice camouflage. Muhammad 05:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)- Support Obviously not a zoo pic. Natural background adds value to an unresampled (slightly cropped for composition) hires image. Lycaon (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Of course not a ZOO pic, and I strongly agree with your kind of late support vote for your own image. I believe the image should get promoted, and I also believe that you should at least try to apply the same standarts that you apply to your own images to other people images too. At first maybe you could try at least not to oppose the images that are unique, rare, underwater, taken in the wild, and highly educational, no matter what quality they are, and then later maybe you could try to support one.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose JalalV (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Impossible to tell whether this is a zoo shot or not, but that makes no difference, it looks like one. The background interferes with the head of the subject, so there is no clear contour of the animal, a basic graphic element. The lighting from behind does not favor subject. Good photographic technique would have called for use of a longer lens, wider aperture, lower camera position in order to exalt the subject. And BTW, nice to see you again. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tomas, look at the geolocation: This is wild Africa where animals don't do as they are told;-), no zoo 450 km in the neighbourhood! Welcome back! Lycaon (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- You can give moon locations for that matter, but that does not mean the picture was taken there, I guess it is just like my live scorpion, that you hint is dead. As I said, zoo shot or not, looks like one. Now, this IS a good shot #REDIRECT [1] And nice to see you too!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if it is a zoo shot or not, but the biggest clue is the focal length of 135mm. It'd be very, very difficult to get so close to a wild animal. Most of the zoo pictures on the English Wikipedia are at similar focal lengths. I'd say that Tomascastelazo was probably picking up the perspective of the 135mm lens, which is quite different to a 500mm one. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- You can give moon locations for that matter, but that does not mean the picture was taken there, I guess it is just like my live scorpion, that you hint is dead. As I said, zoo shot or not, looks like one. Now, this IS a good shot #REDIRECT [1] And nice to see you too!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. – Jerryteps 10:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
