Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:BennyTrapp Natrix helvetica.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:BennyTrapp Natrix helvetica.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2018 at 16:00:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
- Info created & uploaded by Benny Trapp - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support For our sake, it's non-venomous. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support I added an English file description. PumpkinSky talk 20:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Too much unsharp background, especially on the right. I'd suggest a radical crop, which I've noted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with a crop but not as radical as Ikan's. I would leave more space around the head, top and right. Margins are important to highlight the subject. Then I would cut a quarter and not a third -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support I actually like the photo the way it is. We don't have enough wildlife photos that show the depicted species in their natural environment – from a biologist perspective, information about the habitat is also valuable. So, I'm not super happy about removing this additional information. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC) P.S. Unsharpness in photos generally helps the viewer with understanding what the main subject of the image is. I feel like this photographer got everything right…
- To me, this is a question of composition vs. scientific/encyclopedic usefulness. My suggested crop simply works better as a composition in my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- With the crop you suggest, parts of the snake are out of focus. Without the crop, it's kind of nice with the snake in his habitat.
- My eyes don't move well around this composition. That's my main concern. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support Even though when I see photographs like this, I wonder if it is a museum display or someones pet on the lawn. If it is either of those, the photograph could be much much better....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - As I mentioned, I appreciate the encyclopedic value of the picture as it currently is, but the composition doesn't work for me and all the unsharp areas in the background impede eye movement. Part of the problem for me is that they're neither smooth enough (which would come from more fading) nor sharper, but are in the unhappy medium that's aggressively assertive and greatly distracts me from the snake. Obviously, quite a few of you react very differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop is too large. Nothing of interest in this blurry background. But the head of the snake is nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the idea of the crop. I do appreciate that it's nice to see the animal in its environment, but there's too much blur there. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for the right use of Depth of field resulting in a excellent blurry background to eliminate distractions. --The Photographer 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support And I wouldn't like the proposed tight crop. (I agree with The Photographer.) — Draceane talkcontrib. 22:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 18:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles