Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Eating Male Papio hamadryas.JPG

Image:Eating Male Papio hamadryas.JPG - not featured

Info created by LadyofHats — uploaded by LadyofHats — nominated by LadyofHats
Neutral LadyofHats 21:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colours are a little bit dull and there is a slightly disturbing yellow thing behind the ape ; on the other hand, composition is correct, the image is sharp, background is blured appropriately ; what makes the thrill is the ape looking right in your eyes. Rama 07:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Erina 07:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too obvious zoo pic Lycaon 08:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- can you explain me what do you have against zoo pics? does the poor animal looses a hair, has a bone more or changes species? it is a pic of a Papio hamadryas Male monkey. -LadyofHats 08:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is eating an apple and the background is concrete :-( Some zoo pics are not obviously pictures of animals taken in captivity (See Image:Papio hamadryas (aka).jpg). -- Lycaon 09:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - still i dont understand why that an animal is in captivity is a reason for not being a good picture. and on your example the author only just deleted the background. obvious or not that it is a zoo pic, if the picture is good enough it should be featured ...-LadyofHats 10:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry to jump in. IMO, the picture in Image:Papio hamadryas (aka).jpg is not a post-processing picture by background removal. If you look at the pic's metadata, it was taken with 300mm lens, f/5.6 1/320s and a speedlight. It creates a burst of flashlight to the subject. This is the so-called fill-in subject technique. The result, background intensity is dropped. And to get a complete black background like this, the distance between the subject with the background must be far away to avoid background light captured by the lens. Hence, the picture is less likely to be taken in a zoo, as background objects will be visible. Indon 12:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - IMO it's definitely edited (background is uniform 100% black, borders of the monkey look weird) and looks just bad. And it's an FP. I don't understand it... --Erina 18:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The German explanation gives a very plausible reason as to how the background is black. Lycaon 20:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Would you be so kind and tell my that reason? I don't understand German. :( --Erina 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)~~ BabelFish did. OK, I guess getting 100% black this way is possible, I don't know much about photography. It looks weird to me anyway. --Erina 20:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, should have translated. Lycaon 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Lycaon. A zoo is not the natural environment of an animal, a fact that severely diminishes the value of a zoo-shot in comparison to a wildlife photo. Furthermore it is a very simple job to photograph an animal in captivity, so the threshold for excellence is much higher in this case. Roger McLassus 10:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Lycaon and Roger McLassus - MPF 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. To me the photo example with dark background isn't look natural either - more like the monkey was photographed in studio. :) -- Lerdsuwa 09:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zoo or not that animal has to live in it. Dori | Talk 03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ack opositors. Francisco M. Marzoa 14:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]