Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ugandan kobs (Kobus kob thomasi).jpg

File:Ugandan kobs (Kobus kob thomasi).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2017 at 13:49:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ugandan kobs (Kobus kob thomasi).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ugandan kobs (Kobus kob thomasi).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
•  Info The rare two-headed Ugandan kob! All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support. Excellent composition -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Charlesjsharp my eyes hurt even looking at thumb...sharpened too much ? --Mile (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC) p.S. agree with George for compo

• No - my usual light sharpening. 21:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Slightly too much saturation but still FP quality.--Ermell (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. This is very early morning light. Charles (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Amazing shoot, however, excesive tonemaping fixable --The Photographer 01:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've never used tonemapping. 09:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Charles Your picture is amazing, however the build process from RAW has resulted in not real colors nad overprocessed overall. --The Photographer 13:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not actually processed from RAW though I do have the RAW file if anyone has the skills and time!! Charles (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Charles I could help u, please send me the raw --The Photographer 02:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Neutral per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I too feel like this is overcooked.--Peulle (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Great! --Yann (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unnatural colors and way too many blurred plants everywhere. -- Pofka (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Personally I don't think "blurred plants" is a fair reason to oppose a wildlife photograph. A 400mm lens will produce serious bokeh no matter what you do. And focus stacking is not an option for moving subjects. -- Thennicke (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support But I agree with the others about the colours. It has the appearance of tone-mapping (canons do this to their jpegs if auto-lighting optimiser is on), which for such a low-contrast scene produces weird colours. I'm not the best here at processing RAW files but I'm happy to give it a go if nobody else volunteers -- Thennicke (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination Charles (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 12:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)