This young
Barbary Macaque will form part of a group of 25 to 70 individuals, an assemblage of several Gibraltarian monkey families.
Reason
This is a fantastic photograph which clearly shows the details of a Barbary Macaque's face. I know someone is going to come in and complain about the subject being cut off, but the purpose of this photo is to depict the face, not the entire body.
♠ SG→Talk17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose Fantastic picture, but poorly framed. I can't support it when so much of the top of the head is cut off and there is so much space under his chin that is not. I'm not saying that his entire head needs to be shown, but it is cropped too close to his left eye.
Cacophony22:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support As the photographer I feel that people should bear in mind the fact that the photograph’s most important facet is to portray the facial features, as opposed to the face or head for that matter. For instance, if you take a closer look at the eyes you can even see that they are exceedingly reminiscent of a human’s. Fair enough it’s not the best in composition, but you can hardly argue that a commonplace whole-head photograph would have been far too dull.
Chris Buttigiegtalk09:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose due to too-tight cropping/framing on top. I understand the purpose is to document the macaque's facial features, but the framing is distracting all the same and eliminates what most would consider to be part of the face -- the brow/forehead region over the left eye. --
Moondigger13:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - honestly, how could you oppose this? It's like people weigh up intangible positives against tangible negatives like "entire subject is not in shot", and simply prioritise the tangibles. This image is great: it's incredibly sharp, it's detailed, it's attractive, and it's caught the subject with a nice expression. Like I was saying on another image: would you expect to find this sot of image in a print encyclopaedia? Yes: you might have one photo of the whole body, or even several animals together, and a close-up shot such as this, just on the face. I agree that in an ideal world the image would be cropped to include slightly more of the brows, but that's a minor complaint. Cherish what we do have.
Stevage00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. In this case I agree that if the aim of the image is to present the facial features, then this image does that, although it could still be improved with more direct lighting. Anyway, I can deal with a baby monkey crying but are you sure that isn't one of the
Teletubbies??
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs)12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Its very hard to get the lighting right to get a facial shot of those damn monkeys, I tried lots of times. --
Gibnews16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Technical issues at full zoom with some of the single whiskers. Agree that crop is too tight and no argument of facial features is going to sway me. Facial features means I want at least the whole head.
Centy – reply•
contribs –
17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Depicts the macaque's facial features in great detail as well as having the subject looking straight at the lense. Getting a Barbary Macaque to do this only happpens occasionaly and when it does its about three seconds before it attempts to snatch the camera! Congratulations on this great photograph.
Gibmetal 7701:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I think reflects the animal well. I don't mind that the subject is cut off, as I think it achieves it's purpose well.
Nic00703:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support The photo is a bit too close-up, but I don't think that detracs from either the encyclopedic value or the beauty of the picture. --
Kicking22212:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support I like the image a lot, actually. My only criticism: it seems a bit superfluous in the context of the
Barbary Macaque article itself, which already has two macaque images.
SingCal06:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply
This young
Barbary Macaque will form part of a group of 25 to 70 individuals, an assemblage of several Gibraltarian monkey families.
Reason
This is a fantastic photograph which clearly shows the details of a Barbary Macaque's face. I know someone is going to come in and complain about the subject being cut off, but the purpose of this photo is to depict the face, not the entire body.
♠ SG→Talk17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose Fantastic picture, but poorly framed. I can't support it when so much of the top of the head is cut off and there is so much space under his chin that is not. I'm not saying that his entire head needs to be shown, but it is cropped too close to his left eye.
Cacophony22:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support As the photographer I feel that people should bear in mind the fact that the photograph’s most important facet is to portray the facial features, as opposed to the face or head for that matter. For instance, if you take a closer look at the eyes you can even see that they are exceedingly reminiscent of a human’s. Fair enough it’s not the best in composition, but you can hardly argue that a commonplace whole-head photograph would have been far too dull.
Chris Buttigiegtalk09:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose due to too-tight cropping/framing on top. I understand the purpose is to document the macaque's facial features, but the framing is distracting all the same and eliminates what most would consider to be part of the face -- the brow/forehead region over the left eye. --
Moondigger13:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support - honestly, how could you oppose this? It's like people weigh up intangible positives against tangible negatives like "entire subject is not in shot", and simply prioritise the tangibles. This image is great: it's incredibly sharp, it's detailed, it's attractive, and it's caught the subject with a nice expression. Like I was saying on another image: would you expect to find this sot of image in a print encyclopaedia? Yes: you might have one photo of the whole body, or even several animals together, and a close-up shot such as this, just on the face. I agree that in an ideal world the image would be cropped to include slightly more of the brows, but that's a minor complaint. Cherish what we do have.
Stevage00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. In this case I agree that if the aim of the image is to present the facial features, then this image does that, although it could still be improved with more direct lighting. Anyway, I can deal with a baby monkey crying but are you sure that isn't one of the
Teletubbies??
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs)12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Its very hard to get the lighting right to get a facial shot of those damn monkeys, I tried lots of times. --
Gibnews16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose – Technical issues at full zoom with some of the single whiskers. Agree that crop is too tight and no argument of facial features is going to sway me. Facial features means I want at least the whole head.
Centy – reply•
contribs –
17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Depicts the macaque's facial features in great detail as well as having the subject looking straight at the lense. Getting a Barbary Macaque to do this only happpens occasionaly and when it does its about three seconds before it attempts to snatch the camera! Congratulations on this great photograph.
Gibmetal 7701:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support I think reflects the animal well. I don't mind that the subject is cut off, as I think it achieves it's purpose well.
Nic00703:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Support The photo is a bit too close-up, but I don't think that detracs from either the encyclopedic value or the beauty of the picture. --
Kicking22212:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak support I like the image a lot, actually. My only criticism: it seems a bit superfluous in the context of the
Barbary Macaque article itself, which already has two macaque images.
SingCal06:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)reply