Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:PER Fluffy Fancy Antony (5468896948).jpg

File:PER Fluffy Fancy Antony (5468896948).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2016 at 11:44:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Nickolas Titkov, uploaded by INeverCry, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, nice composition, and a funny nose. -- Yann (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 18:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I hadn't had any plan to vote against this picture until I started writing this (which was originally going to be just a comment), but I would like to ask you all a question: What's so great about it? There are three lines - near, far, and to the left - all of which encompass part of the cat, beyond which the image suddenly and drastically blurs. In my opinion, a good portrait should not do that. I don't know the technical issues involved, but my art is music, which I usually express by playing the flute (I also compose), and I know the difference between playing the flute and allowing the flute to play you. I had a coach in my first year of Masters study who was a percussionist. I was playing a piece for flute and marimba (an instrument that can't retune on the fly), and he told me I was too sharp in the upper register. I made excuses for myself, say that it's hard to play the upper register in tune, and he said "I don't care; you're sharp! Play lower!" And so I say to the portraitists here: I don't care how hard it is to get your entire subject in focus; get it in focus! (The cat is also funny-looking, but that wouldn't prevent me from supporting a clear picture of it that's part of a good composition.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about "cat portraiture". For people, the basics seem to be that the eyes (or nearest eye, if side-on) is in sharp focus, eyes not in shadow, the subject is flatteringly lit and posed. When we look at someone, we look at their eyes and our vision only has a tiny central portion that is sharp, with all the rest blurry. So a portrait with shallow DoF is not unlike reality, provided one does not move off the eyes and examine the rest. And, especially beauty portraiture, often don't want every pore and blemish on the face to be highly visible so the fact that the end of their nose and their ears are out of focus, is perhaps no bad thing. The background should not be distracting so blurred and people spend a lot of money getting lenses that blur this in a nice way. Ikan, you seem to often comment that you dislike this. Well that's your taste but I might suggest you may be sitting too close to your monitor while looking at 100% images. On Flickr and elsewhere, you often don't have the possibility to look at the full-size image as people tend to only upload small images. For example, a 24MP image on a 100dpi monitor is 1.5m across, or in portrait aspect, nearly has high as a small adult. That's A00 or 4-sheet poster size. A 36MP image would be the same size as a 6-sheet bus stop poster. Would you normally look at that size of image from 30cm? Perhaps, to judge if the overall image works, it is best to not enlarge beyond filling your monitor and sitting comfortably back. By all means look at 100% to check the focus is correct and look for flaws (within reason!), but it isn't a great way to judge the overall image. Having said that... -- Colin (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have commented before that I am often skeptical of bokeh. The problem with this portrait is not bokeh; it's that part of the cat is drastically out of focus, and that's quite obvious merely when looking at the file's page (I mean [File:PER Fluffy Fancy Antony (5468896948).jpg this view], not even a full-page view of the photo). And it'd be one thing if there were a gradual fade from sharp focus to a softer view, but no! Instead, it's a sudden change after a definable line! No-one would accept this kind of stuff in a painted portrait that's supposed to be realistic; why should I - or any of us - accept it in a photograph? I say the emperor has no clothes! Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are we looking at the same picture? The eyes, and most of the face, are in focus, and sharp. Now some may find other reasons to oppose, but the focus is certainly not one of them. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree the focus is accurate and the face is in focus. But is that sufficient for an animal picture on Commons? Ikan, a painted portrait has different qualities and focus isn't handled the way a lens does. The artist may choose to render some areas in less detail, more impressionist. I'm responding to your argument that a portrait must have the whole subject in focus -- and (for people anyway, which I suppose is a bit off-topic here) that isn't the accepted norm. It may be your taste but there are perfectly good portrait photographers using very shallow DoF. However, on this image, are you suggesting that someone might have added a deliberate blur? The image has been through Photoshop and Photoshop does have the ability to add blur which some people use. But the 150mm lens at f/6.3 at close focus range would have very shallow DoF anyway. Here I do agree with you that the photographer should have used more DoF. -- Colin (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm saying if it's not a deliberate blur, it's in any event an objectionable one. As I said above, if you want to have a gradual transition from a sharper focus to a softer one, that's fine. Having a line (or in this case, 3 lines) beyond which the image of the cat suddenly and drastically blurs is either wrongheaded or incompetent, in my opinion. I'll take everyone's word for it that it's not the photographer's incompetence but a choice I find objectionable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background looks like one of those cheap "fake sky" boards that shopping-centre portrait photographers use. The very shallow DoF might be fashionable for a lady (human!) but is a little weird IMO for a cat. If this was an educational photograph of this breed of cat, I'd like to see more in focus and more of it, like we expect for other animals. Perhaps as an example of cheesy cat portraiture it has some EV, but it isn't my taste. -- Colin (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the photograph is taken sharp and professionally but not brilliant, the depicted cat is nothing to promote in a positive way, it is the face of abusive breeding shown here, destroying animals' health by forcing evolution to reduce the nose to malfunction. Such pictures should only be displayed with clear critical comment, in case of which being insured i could reconsider my vote. --.js^{[democracy needed]} 11:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- .js, how this picture is "displayed" isn't really a concern for Commons, since we are a repository of images not a publisher who makes editorial comment. Commons neither "promotes in a positive way" nor suggests such breeding is "abusive". How the image is used is someone else's concern. -- Colin (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I could support this with a crop to the head. However, as it is the rest of the animal looks like an amorphous pile of fur. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support visually successful IMO Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly per Daniel Case.--Jebulon (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not outstanding enough to be FP. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]