Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agama agama (Carl Linnaeus, 1758).jpg

File:Agama agama (Carl Linnaeus, 1758).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 18:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Agama agama (Carl Linnaeus, 1758).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agama agama (Carl Linnaeus, 1758).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed -- Christian Ferrer 19:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure I get you here. Where is this overexposed? A bit of a contrasty scene, but I see nothing wrong otherwise. - Benh (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Benh: Maybe the word "overexposition" is not the same in my mind and in yours. What I call overexposition here are the incandescent scales of the lizard above, on the head, leg and body. If there is another technical term to describe that, please tell me, that I will not commit this error another. -- Christian Ferrer 04:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I should add that if this minor flaw was enough compensated by a wow from my point of view, I would have not oppose. Thus maybe I'll had to say : "From my point of view there is no wow enough in this image to compensate the minor flaws about the lightning. And insofar details, light not the composition (not entire animals), are not outstanding, the image don't deserve the statut of "featured picture". This is of course only my point of view and this is why I oppose". I'm not good at English language, and for this both last sentences I spend more than 40 minutes, so excuse me just having writing "overexposed", the first time. -- Christian Ferrer 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Pas sûr de te suivre :) je continue en français. Surexp, c'est quand la scène est globalement trop claire. Parfois, c'est même irrattrapable car on a des pixels blancs (alors qu'il ne devraient pas). Ici, rien ne me semble trop clair, bien que ça ressorte par rapport aux parties sombres. - Benh (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Benh, Une partie de la tete, de la pate et certaines du corps sont pour moi trop claires et ont l'air incandescantes (alors qu'elles ne devraient pas), et les détails ont disparus sur ces zones. Le terme surexp. est donc fidèle à mon impression. Et si l'interet visuel de cette photo qui certe est indéniable avait eu suffisement d'impact sur moi, je n'aurai pas opposé. Donc en anglais, c'est pour moi beaucoup plus simple de dire "overexposed". -- Christian Ferrer 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for imposing myself on your French conversation but I (Through basic understanding and Google Translate) understand what you are saying, and I think you both have some valid points but are also missing others. Benh, overexposure isn't just blown highlights, it can also mean that the scene/object looks unnaturally or unrealistically bright. Christian, I don't think that the 'overexposure' is actually causing the air to incandesce (literally or not). The glow around the highlights is most likely lens flare. It could happen even without overexposure if the lens design is bad or if the lens is not clean. Anyway, I think it's quite minor but you're of course entitled to your opinion. Diliff (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your explanation, I would not die stupid, and I want to trust you as you are all both more experienced photographers, thanks :) -- Christian Ferrer 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yup Diliff, that's what I meant with "la scène est globalement trop claire" (globally too bright). But I meant that here we can still recover the bright parts (in case it's too much for some). Actually I've looked more closely again, and it's true that the small bright dots seem to be clipped area which where darkened (and which aren't glow to me). So I'm sorry I was too hasty in my previous comment. Christian, il y a des points qui paraissent vraiment trop clairs (et que je n'avais pas vu car par ouvert l'image à 100%), et sur lesquels on perd les détails fins. Donc oui il aurait dû sous exposer un peu, quite à éclaircir les ombres après. Bon rien de rédhibitoire, mais je pense que tu avais bon, et le terme me parait approprié. Mes excuses. - Benh (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Minor problems with the light, but sharp enough overall. Funny photo. --Tremonist (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support. I'd have liked to have seen the tail too, but if it's quite long, it would unbalance the composition so maybe it's best like this. I actually like the lighting. It's moody, suitable for such an act. ;-) Diliff (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Per Diliff. I suppose, then, that because of the lighting we can call this lizard er0tica rather than lizard pr0n? . Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support; but not sure whether this is a mating picture (as many commented above). No colors of breeding season; not exactly a mating position. No clue about mating in file description too. Jee 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's true, good point. I wouldn't know if it's really a mating position, but it does seem strange for them to be on top of each other if they're not mating. Unless the one on top wanted to maximise its warmth (I'm guessing it's being lit but a heat-lamp). Diliff (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I think it can be a social behaviour; especially in a crowded limited space in a zoo. Not sure though. Jee 01:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I did some search, and it seems to be a basking moment under artificial (?) lights. Hope Michael can describe/explain the situation better than me. (Mating or reptiles is a bit more complicated due to the tail; but it can be a moment of foreplay if true.) Jee 06:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose bad lighting for FP, only QI --Atamari (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles