Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panthera uncia - Zoo Karlsruhe 02.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Panthera uncia - Zoo Karlsruhe 02.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2017 at 21:52:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The animal gets a bit lost in the background. lNeverCry 23:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment Yes, it is a typical example of camouflage of animals and also the aim of it. --Llez (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Llez: I like the leopard, but you're really limited by the zoo environment. In the wild, these guys can be found on top of big rocks or hills, or in meadows, both of which would give you a chance at better bokeh. Camouflage wasn't designed to be helpful to photographers.
lNeverCry 07:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not to photographers, but to the leopards ;-) --Llez (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Llez: I like the leopard, but you're really limited by the zoo environment. In the wild, these guys can be found on top of big rocks or hills, or in meadows, both of which would give you a chance at better bokeh. Camouflage wasn't designed to be helpful to photographers.
- Oppose zoo background (and crop). Charles (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately, as I've said with so many other nominations of images showing how an animal's camouflage works, what makes this effective as that kind of demonstration also makes it ineffective as an FP required to wow the viewer, since the animal fades into the background too much. The fact that some of it is blurred doesn't help, either. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, in my view the wow factor does not have to be so closely related to the background separation than you make it sound it is. The picture could provide plenty of wow for someone exactly because at first sight, the leopard was not well visible, and it takes a bit longer to see it. Whereas wildlife with smooth background blur is desireable, it is the more common kind of photograph. Would you oppose a photograph showing an animal perfectly hidden in plain sight, demonstrating the camouflage the best possible way, solely on lack of subject separation, just on principle? While it doesn't have to be this photo, I believe photos demonstrating camouflage should be given a fair chance for FP. (Maybe we already have some featured, I didn't check) – LucasT 18:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Lucasbosch: This is just why it doesn't work for me. Others are free to disagree and support. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- (I continued my inquiry of Daniel Case on his talk page) – LucasT 07:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Lucasbosch: This is just why it doesn't work for me. Others are free to disagree and support. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, in my view the wow factor does not have to be so closely related to the background separation than you make it sound it is. The picture could provide plenty of wow for someone exactly because at first sight, the leopard was not well visible, and it takes a bit longer to see it. Whereas wildlife with smooth background blur is desireable, it is the more common kind of photograph. Would you oppose a photograph showing an animal perfectly hidden in plain sight, demonstrating the camouflage the best possible way, solely on lack of subject separation, just on principle? While it doesn't have to be this photo, I believe photos demonstrating camouflage should be given a fair chance for FP. (Maybe we already have some featured, I didn't check) – LucasT 18:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support I love many things of this photograph. The different textures between background and the cat, good volume of areas, etc. Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Background and crop. Yann (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Tomascastelazo – LucasT 14:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
