Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vulpes vulpes, Red Fox, Zorro.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 12:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Juan lacruz - uploaded by Juan lacruz - nominated by Juan lacruz -- Juan Lacruz (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Support -- Juan Lacruz (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)- Support Wow! Yann (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Wow indeed, but I believe the picture lacks lead room, and the quality is deceptive at full size. --24.53.4.36 16:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I should have checked that I was connected before posting. Above comment is from me. Sorry! --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Same as above. The image looks amazing, but is off-quality when viewed in original size. Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Amazing moment, horrible quality. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)- Oppose That's one seriously mangy fox. But what went wrong with the image. Oversharpening and high jpg compression perhaps? -- Colin (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nominationI withdraw my nomination. The image illustrates a poor fox suffering a sarcoptes scabies serious infection, a common disease in foxes. That day was very foggy and the picture was taken under low light conditions.
- The photographic quality of this is amazing, I really think the only problem here is strong jpeg compression and in-camera sharpening. With a raw file, this could definitely be a FP (at least it would have my support). --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- An amazing shot, according to the EXIF there is no reason except jpg compression to have such artefacts. And even if the quality is not there, it can still illustrate few pages in wikipedia very well. Do not hesitate to nominate it again if you can improve the jpg :) --PierreSelim (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- The photographic quality of this is amazing, I really think the only problem here is strong jpeg compression and in-camera sharpening. With a raw file, this could definitely be a FP (at least it would have my support). --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
