Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iguana portrait acapulco 201905 1.jpg

File:Iguana portrait acapulco 201905 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2019 at 17:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Iguana portrait acapulco 201905 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iguana portrait acapulco 201905 1.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
•  Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Neutral In my opinion it needs more/any sharpening to bring out the details – Lucas 18:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment too dark. Charles (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Thanks, a light sharpness has been applied and the the image is less dark now, --Cvmontuy (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose still not FP. And this is not a challenging shot to take. Charles (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Quality is not perfect, but it certainly has wow (especially considering the high resolution). Cmao20 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- 🇪A〒ℂ🇭A  💬 06:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Regretful  Oppose because of quality issues. The noise is too strong, and I see some purple CAs at the snout. If this could fixed in a satisfying manner, I would be happy to switch to support. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Comparing the initial version and the recent "reprocessed" version, the sharpening has indeed brought a bit of "pop" (when viewed at screen size), but at the expense of strongly increased noise (when viewed at 100%). I think editing has gone a bit too far there. On my display, the third version from 18:52 looks just as sharp at screen size as the latest one, but without the excessive noise. The CA is also much less apparent in that version. Propose to maybe go back to that one and just brighten it up a bit … --El Grafo (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Extremely noisy at full size. ISO 100 in the exif doesn't make much sense, when you compare to the details of a similar shot taken at ISO 200 for example. Poor lighting conditions or overprocessed picture. The level of noise becomes acceptable at 50% only (3000 px large), that's not huge -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Noise has been reduced thanks --Cvmontuy (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Neutral Per above--BoothSift 01:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Better now. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support ‐‐ Piotr Bart (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Motion blur, Chromatic aberration and lack of deep of field --Wilfredor (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Support. Vulphere 14:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--BoothSift 22:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Iguanidae_(Iguanas)