Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agalychnis callidryas (eye detail).jpg

File:Agalychnis callidryas (eye detail).jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2009 at 11:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Agalychnis callidryas (eye detail).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agalychnis callidryas (eye detail).jpg

•  Info all by Lycaon (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  Taken in the wild in its natural environment. A 10 seconds' opportunity.
•  Weak Oppose You should have took the picture of the little guy's entire face. It is a good picture, but not enough "depth" if you know what I mean, for FP Ter890 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Did I understand you right?Did you really applied criteria "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject." ? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not a difficult subject. It's a stationary object in daylight that the photographer was able to get very close to. It's hard to imagine an easier subject, actually. -- JovanCormac 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Jovan, I respect your opinion very much, but I believe you are wrong on that one. I myself saw wild frogs like these one in Costa Rica. They are very small,very fast and usually found in a dark places. I do not recall seeing lot's of sun in tropical forests in Costa Rica (the trees are too tall). --Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Please see User_talk:JovanCormac#Agalychnis_callidryas. While I understand that it is more difficult than I thought to get such a shot, the examples given in that thread clearly show that one can do better. -- JovanCormac 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ter890. -- JovanCormac 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support the file shows good quality and very good for image of the day --Elberth 00001939 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Even though I'd prefer a larger DOF. But like the title says, it's an "eye detail". -- Petritap (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support framing could be better but these guys are very fast ... good detail study --ianaré (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A little too narrow DOF, buy eye is good . - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Low DOF, bad framing, not perfect quality. It's good, but not FP. —kallerna™ 12:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I really, really like the eye. But there is too much of the image not in focus etc, it needs to be cropped to highlight the subject (eye detail). I have experimented with different crops but couldn't find anything that pleases me. Perhaps someone better at composition issues, than me, will have a go :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was also thinking about the crop. IMO, if it is to be cropped, it should be cropped from the original in order do not loose the resolution.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Kallerna -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. --Kosiarz-PL 09:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Estrilda (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC) --Estrilda (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --663h (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Shallow DoF and confusing depth. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Well, I think that the unusual DOF actually draws a person towards the eye. I like it. --JalalV (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)