Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grey Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), portrait.jpg

File:Grey Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), portrait.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 22:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Grey Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), portrait.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grey Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), portrait.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
•  Info created by California Department of Water Resources, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support The best portrait we have of this species, and cute. -- Yann (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 00:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support It's a great shot that would be hard to replicate, and caught me eye more than most animal photography does. Despite this, there is a large amount of noise present, though this picture is from 1993 and was taken with film. Because of this I'll let the noise slide, though a better digital reproduction/conversion probably could have been done. Thanks. WClarke 03:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - I'm tempted to vote against, as I consider it a historical image that needs better digital editing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @WClarke and Ikan Kekek: I did slide digitization myself, and I don't think one could do better than this. Now if someone want to try digital editing, please do. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm no experienced digital restorer. However, there are some stray marks on the photo, including a bright line above the fox's head that looks like a scratch on the photo's surface. There are also what look like stray dark spots. I'm feeling this more as a VI than an FP, though I note that the VI nomination is so far drawing opposition. I may look at that nomination more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think that for a VI, a picture of the whole animal is better, while a portrait has more wow effect. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• You are right that the whole animal is needed for a VI of the animal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I've done a very light digital restoration of the photo, mostly reduced the color noise, filled in the dark spots I could find and sharpened it very lightly. The "bright line" stays though since it is just one of the very long vibrissae in the eye region of the fox. Keep or rollback as you please, Yann. --cart-Talk 12:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Well images are usually rejected here for noise levels a fraction of this. Is there a reason why this should be an exception just because it was taken years ago? I don't consider it a historical image. Charles (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose While doing the restoration, I finally figured out what the flesh-colored thing at the bottom of the pic was. At first I thought it might be a wound, a cub licking or something, now I see that it is the thumb nail of someone holding the fox. In a photo like this, it's a no-no for FP IMO. I also sort of agree with Charles about the noise, even if this is "the best we've got". --cart-Talk 13:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, too bad. But seriously, the complains about the noise are not very serious... Yann (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 20:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)