Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2012 at 12:48:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution and quality, interesting topic (frogs mating)
- Articles in which this image appears
- amplexus, common toad
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
- Creator
- Bernie Kohl
- Support as nominator -- Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Excellent photograph and good EV. There's also a 16-bit TIFF version and the license couldn't be more open. Colin° Talk 13:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wondered if slight sharpening would help to address the DOF issue here. It's not far off, but just enough to be marginally annoying. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 ( talk) 14:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I could give it a run through GIMP tomorrow. Little late tonight, since a download would take 10 minutes and the upload 20 (my connection sucks) Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- From my point of view it is an absolute no-no to sharpen out of focus areas. A photograph is not a 3d-rendering and always has narrow depth of field. It would be technically feasible to recover all the blurred detail through deconvolution sharpening, but as soon as you run a standard sharpening filter over the image you end up destroying the photographer's initial work. When I created the image I carefully masked out the pixels within the field of focus and sharpened them using a high-pass filter. Now if you want more sharpness I can increase the strength of the filter, but please don't destroy the photograph just because some people are too technically minded. -- Bernie Kohl ( talk) 17:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fair point. Unless someone else objects, I'll leave it alone. If I do run it through a sharpener, it would be uploaded separately. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Caption is too long. Please make more succinct in order to meet
FP criterion #7; see also
Wikipedia:Caption#Succinctness. —
Eustress
talk
19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- See
Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Really confused about captions.
Colin°
Talk
20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Trimmed a sentence. Seems I'm not the only one getting mixed signals with captions. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- See
Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Really confused about captions.
Colin°
Talk
20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Good EV, pretty photo. I don't see the caption problem. JJ Harrison ( talk) 08:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Good macro photo with good EV. Would have liked to see it from a slightly higher vantage point though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose If it were to have just one of the jello background and lack in foreground focus, I'd let it slip, but seeing that we're apparently prevented from fixing shortcomings without incurring wrath, I'm going to have to oppose. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 ( talk) 16:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent. O.J. ( talk) 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support as nominator in Commons. Tomer T ( talk) 19:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Good shot. Clegs ( talk) 08:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Nice lighting and background -- Fir0002 03:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Jkadavoor ( talk) 05:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Amplexus Bufo bufo 2010-03-29.jpg -- Makeemlighter ( talk) 10:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2012 at 12:48:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution and quality, interesting topic (frogs mating)
- Articles in which this image appears
- amplexus, common toad
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
- Creator
- Bernie Kohl
- Support as nominator -- Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Excellent photograph and good EV. There's also a 16-bit TIFF version and the license couldn't be more open. Colin° Talk 13:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wondered if slight sharpening would help to address the DOF issue here. It's not far off, but just enough to be marginally annoying. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 ( talk) 14:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I could give it a run through GIMP tomorrow. Little late tonight, since a download would take 10 minutes and the upload 20 (my connection sucks) Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- From my point of view it is an absolute no-no to sharpen out of focus areas. A photograph is not a 3d-rendering and always has narrow depth of field. It would be technically feasible to recover all the blurred detail through deconvolution sharpening, but as soon as you run a standard sharpening filter over the image you end up destroying the photographer's initial work. When I created the image I carefully masked out the pixels within the field of focus and sharpened them using a high-pass filter. Now if you want more sharpness I can increase the strength of the filter, but please don't destroy the photograph just because some people are too technically minded. -- Bernie Kohl ( talk) 17:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fair point. Unless someone else objects, I'll leave it alone. If I do run it through a sharpener, it would be uploaded separately. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Caption is too long. Please make more succinct in order to meet
FP criterion #7; see also
Wikipedia:Caption#Succinctness. —
Eustress
talk
19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- See
Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Really confused about captions.
Colin°
Talk
20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Trimmed a sentence. Seems I'm not the only one getting mixed signals with captions. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- See
Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Really confused about captions.
Colin°
Talk
20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Good EV, pretty photo. I don't see the caption problem. JJ Harrison ( talk) 08:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Good macro photo with good EV. Would have liked to see it from a slightly higher vantage point though. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose If it were to have just one of the jello background and lack in foreground focus, I'd let it slip, but seeing that we're apparently prevented from fixing shortcomings without incurring wrath, I'm going to have to oppose. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 ( talk) 16:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent. O.J. ( talk) 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support as nominator in Commons. Tomer T ( talk) 19:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Good shot. Clegs ( talk) 08:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Nice lighting and background -- Fir0002 03:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Jkadavoor ( talk) 05:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Promoted File:Amplexus Bufo bufo 2010-03-29.jpg -- Makeemlighter ( talk) 10:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)