Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Олень з кленовим листком.jpg

File:Олень з кленовим листком.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2023 at 16:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Cervidae (Deers)
Info created and uploaded by Byrdyak - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a pose! Yann (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support has a potential to be a POTY finalist. -- Ivar (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice portrait but pretty noisy --Poco a poco (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition but soft and noisy. ~~No EXIF~~ No EXIF so I can't tell why it is soft and noisy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC) edited Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could support it even so, but not without an EXIF. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Crossed out per persuasive discussion on talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, given the consensus that the EXIF is not an issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully oppose Normally, I would support this but no EXIF data = no FP, sorry. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better some noise than excessive noise reduction. I would love to see the EXIF data, too, but is there a rule requiring FPs to have EXIF data? Maybe we should add that rule (for all new nominations), but right now I can’t find such a rule. We could discuss this on the discussion page. --Aristeas (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
while I agree that EXIF are extremely useful to contextualize a photo or just learn about photography, it is so easy to fake them that I wonder if it really makes sense to require them? - Benh (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should discuss this more on the talk page, so all I'll say here is that you might want to make that argument at Commons talk:Deletion requests, because the lack of an EXIF is so often a major reason for successful deletion nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't really expand on that, but deleting based on lack of EXIF alone is a stupid reason. EXIF can be easily made up and therefore are also to be trusted with pinch of salt - Benh (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People who delete images here based on the fact that those photos lack EXIF data should ask themselves whether they should take on a different hobby. Sorry to sound harsh, but this is getting more and more ridiculous. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Ivar. Furthermore I will not find it "less featurable" even if I learn that it was taken with a big megapixel potential camera. Good wine tasters do it without seeing the label, the others, who absolutely need to see the labels each times, don't know much about wine tasting. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this was about paintings, would we reject an image because the artist used the wrong brush and easel? (or wouldn't tell is which brush and easel he/she used) – The large majority of this year's Picture of the Year Top-10 (or was it all of them?) wasn't taken by Commons photographers. Has anyone ever wondered why that's the case? Do we perhaps focus on the wrong criteria? Is photography really only about the technical tools and who can do the best focus stacking? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can't see what settings the photographer used, but it may have included a very high ISO or just an inadequate camera. The result is barely QI and is a routine composition. The leaf detracts. There are times of the day and poor weather conditions, when taking an FP of a large mammal is impossible. You just have to wait and try again. I do agree though that we promote too many easy-to-replicate photos, many of which are focus-stacks. I would limit FP to Commons photographers, but I suspect that is a minority view. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That leaf does not distract, it is the point of the photo and gives it a real chance at the next POTY competition. --Aristeas (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per supporters above. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little image noise yes. The interplay of colored leaf and animal makes a lot of difference, even if the leaf distracts a bit from the animal. --XRay 💬 13:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only problem for me is bottom crop. @Ikan Kekek for EXIF, yes and no. There are some who try to hide, but you can always ask for original (unedited) photo, where you can see the real stuff - EXIF. I checked shots from Byrdyak, and many are very good. Trying to find camera: D3 (12 Mpx - 4256×2832 px) and D800 (36 MPx, 7,360 × 4,912) he used. I got feeling, since softness was mentioned, this was even enlarged (D3 4256×2832 to 4500×3000) on Nikon software ViewNX. Ratio 4500:4256 equals to 3000:2832 better than downsizing from D800. Just a theory. --Mile (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wieggy (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Cervidae (Deers)