Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A capybara at the Hattiesburg Zoo

A capybara at the Hattiesburg Zoo

Original - A capybara at the Hattiesburg Zoo in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

Reason: Excellent high-resolution image that does a great job of illustrating an aspect of its article subject.
Articles this image appears in: Capybara
Creator: User:VigilancePrime

Support as nominator Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reflection from what I assume is glass between the capybara and the photographer and the unfocused rear of the capybara in the water together damage the overall quality too much. -Enuja (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Glass effects mentioned, and poor DOF. --Sean 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Today's lesson in photography...) The "reflection" is around Capy, similar to "framing" a subject. There is/was no glass. The depth-of-field is intentionally narrow to draw your focus to the Capy's face; the rear is just outside the focus field on purpose and the face/head extremely crisp. That's how real cameras work, rather than the "everything in the frame is in focus" of a disposable camera. (Not sure how much of this was known or would be known to future readers/voters; please do not take offense to this as I'm not intending to talk down to someone who does know while at the same time inform someone who may not.) Personally, I have my own nitpicks that have nothing to do with the focus (which is excellent!). Anyway, all in good fun; I didn't expect one of my photos would end up here ever anyway! :-) VigilancePrime (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC) :-)[reply]
Oppose Blown-out highlights in fur, too shallow DOF. --Janke | Talk 06:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 02:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking; Thank you VO for the nomination. I agree with the decision (though for different reasons). I'm flattered that one was deemed good enough to be looked at at least! Thanks to all who contributed thoughts! VigilancePrime (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]