Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rough Collie Canberra 2016.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Rough Collie Canberra 2016.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 03:09:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
Info Rough collie in a reclining pose.- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose colors, crop --Mile (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with either; could you please elaborate? Is the objection to do with the dog being in the shade? And what is a better crop, in your opinion? Thanks -- Thennicke (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment I put notice what kind of shot i would take. Sometime detail is much better. I would move down and to left. Taking care when dog will move head etc etc (to capture first legs and head). Anyway, to get dog for Feautered i think some work is necessary to get something. This is more problematic than portraits. --Mile (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - Among other things, I don't like the very blurry background and don't see the justification for it. It's not like you're trying to focus on a tiny gnat or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- As I understand it, it's standard practise in portraits and photos taken of similar-sized things to blur the background; it helps the subject stand out. In fact, I used a much smaller aperture than is usual; many would open up to around f/3.5. And in the interests of me learning, could you please elaborate what the "other things" are? Thanks Ikan -- Thennicke (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't love the light. I think it's fine to have the dog in shade, but then maybe greener grass would help give more sparkle to the picture. In terms of my comments about just how blurry the background is, my objection to that is probably fairly idiosyncratic on this board, but I find the degree of blur unpleasant, and since the very blurred area is so close to you, it's not like it needs to be so blurred to show distance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the explanation. This is a really normal DOF to see when taking pictures at these distances, for a full-frame camera. Can't do anything about the grass; it hasn't rained here in 3 months :P -- Thennicke (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- So you probably can't take a photo of the dog in shade on the grass right now that I'd consider a FP. But the rains will come, eventually. As for the blurred background, others will vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree with my colleagues. The crop is fine, though maybe a little more space could work. The colors are not bad, quality is at the level, the DoF is well chosen. The dog is nice, in a nice standing. The only thing that prevent the image to be outstanding is the light, some area in the background are lighted by the sun, sadly not the dog... Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: Thanks for the helpful review! The issue you pointed out is actually the same I had with the image, (though I still consider it featurable). -- Thennicke (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Christian. INeverCry 02:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. It certainly is a nice portrait of the dog, but the dull, cold colours of background and shadows spoil it. Not bad, but also by no means outstanding as a photograph. A lower point of view might be much more interesting, by the way. Have a look at other FPs of canidae. --Kreuzschnabel 09:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Washed-out color, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
