Stoney Creek Frog
I know many people here do not like flash photography, and usually for good reason. The reasons usually being: glare and colour accuracy. This photo, however has very little glare, and the colour is accurate. This is a very beautiful frog, and although common, is rarely seen or heard by most people, as they have no vocal sac, and are nocturnal. ; Appears in Stoney Creek Frog. -- liquidGhoul 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - liquidGhoul 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Not bad, but I'm not "wowed"... -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Hey liquidGhoul, I actually thought the same as you when I first saw this one. Awe-inspiringly beautiful. - Samsara contrib talk 11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Support not bad, but a bit on the small side. chowells 11:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have just uploaded another. It is larger, and has a less distracting background. :) -- liquidGhoul 12:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad but insufficient for FP status Calderwood 16:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like it, but then again, I'm a sucker for frogs. Good composition and I have no problem with the size. I like the original picture better than the alternative, by the way. Swilk 04:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- As do I, I love the toes on the first one. -- liquidGhoul 10:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I must concur. -- Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've never been a fan of artificial lighting.
enochlau (
talk)
15:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can you tell me why? How does it detract from this image? --
liquidGhoul
23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I just don't feel that harsh unnatural lighting goes well with pictures of natural things, like frogs. enochlau ( talk) 00:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can you tell me why? How does it detract from this image? --
liquidGhoul
23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- "harsh" suggests that the photo is overexposed and "unnatural" suggests that the colour accuracy is wrong, both of which are not true. So I just don't understand what you mean. -- liquidGhoul 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, agree with Calderwood. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 15:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support a very nice picture of a very nice frog. -- Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Not striking enough.-- ragesoss 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Stoney Creek Frog
I know many people here do not like flash photography, and usually for good reason. The reasons usually being: glare and colour accuracy. This photo, however has very little glare, and the colour is accurate. This is a very beautiful frog, and although common, is rarely seen or heard by most people, as they have no vocal sac, and are nocturnal. ; Appears in Stoney Creek Frog. -- liquidGhoul 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nominate and support. - liquidGhoul 03:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Not bad, but I'm not "wowed"... -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Hey liquidGhoul, I actually thought the same as you when I first saw this one. Awe-inspiringly beautiful. - Samsara contrib talk 11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Support not bad, but a bit on the small side. chowells 11:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have just uploaded another. It is larger, and has a less distracting background. :) -- liquidGhoul 12:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad but insufficient for FP status Calderwood 16:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support I like it, but then again, I'm a sucker for frogs. Good composition and I have no problem with the size. I like the original picture better than the alternative, by the way. Swilk 04:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- As do I, I love the toes on the first one. -- liquidGhoul 10:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I must concur. -- Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've never been a fan of artificial lighting.
enochlau (
talk)
15:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can you tell me why? How does it detract from this image? --
liquidGhoul
23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I just don't feel that harsh unnatural lighting goes well with pictures of natural things, like frogs. enochlau ( talk) 00:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can you tell me why? How does it detract from this image? --
liquidGhoul
23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- "harsh" suggests that the photo is overexposed and "unnatural" suggests that the colour accuracy is wrong, both of which are not true. So I just don't understand what you mean. -- liquidGhoul 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, agree with Calderwood. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 15:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support a very nice picture of a very nice frog. -- Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Not striking enough.-- ragesoss 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)