Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fawn in Forest

Fawn in Forest

Edit by Veledan • Talk ^{+ new}

I took this picture one morning when I saw a fawn wandering around in the woods. It approached until it was about 10 feet from me, making for some great shots. Appears on deer.

Self Nom. --Elfer 17:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The deer is in a strange position! I think it is brilliant! Thelb4 18:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support! Thelb4 10:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It has obviously seen you, too ;) -- Chris 73 Talk 12:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, yeah, I think the reason the deer came so close was because it saw me. It was somehow separated from the mother deer. It actually started following me when I started to leave. I didn't want to be right near the baby when the mother turned up --Elfer 22:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lovely picture - Adrian Pingstone 20:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I wonder where the mother deer is though. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd seen this fawn before, but with another fawn and the mother deer with it. I guess it got separated from the mother deer for a while somehow, but it was a great opportunity to get some pictures. I have another picture, where the deer is in more of a "stereotypical cute fawn" pose, but in that photo, the fawn's rear legs are obscured by a tree that was closer to the camera. --Elfer 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I think this picture is as good as I've ever seen. It is a perfect representation of a fawn. Seriously, nice work. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, here's the other picture anyway, in case you wanted to take a gander at it. TREEEEEEEE! --Elfer 03:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Heh, come to think of it, this picture had something that almost ruined it, but a quick once-over with photoshop took it out quite convincingly. --Elfer 05:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The fawn's left ear, the bark of the trees and general parts of the background appear too blue, or at least off-colour somewhat. Burn the asylum 09:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Err... I'm not sure why they would seem off-colour, because these colours are pretty accurate to the location. I'm sorry, but that's the colour of the bark where those trees are. --Elfer 16:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a lovely pic! But I'd like to see more detail in the background, and some more red in the mix: (see edit) ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 10:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What program did you use for that? The colour is somewhat more vibrant in that one, but it looks like the background has gotten really grainy. --Elfer 16:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Photoshop CS. It's the auto shadow/highlight levels corrector and then an auto colour balance followed by a manual tweak to add more red and yellow. I don't think it has come out grainy myself - the colour variation you can see in the edited background is the detail of the forest floor which was all quite dark in the original. I'm too undecided to vote for either version though. I do like the pic, (sufficiently strongly to have played with it and uploaded a new verson!), but I have to agree with Raven4x4 below that it isn't quite sharp / detailed enough to be outstanding. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to do this, but I have to oppose. It's a lovely picture but the sharpness isn't there on either version. Raven4x4x 00:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Lighting makes the whole picture look a bit bland. Enochlau 03:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support second version. James F. (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Fawn_in_Forest_edit.jpg -- Enochlau 06:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]