Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Tachyglossus aculeatus side on.jpg

Short-beaked Echidna

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2010 at 05:12:44 (UTC)

Original - Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus setosus), Mount Field National Park, Tasmania, Australia

Reason: It is nice to get a wild one on the move. Echidnas "dig in" hiding the face and legs when a predator is spotted. There is an Echidna FP already, but it is a different subspecies.
Articles in which this image appears: Short-beaked Echidna, Monotreme
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quality shot. Focus is spot on. DOF shallow but good isolation of the subject. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the animal is out of focus. Nergaal (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is that a brush/clone mark slightly to the left of centre towards the top of the picture? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look like a brush/clone mark - probably either dust on the sensor or something in the air out of the plane of focus. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It most of the little critter is out of focus. It would not be impossible to take a photo without this problem. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case the Echidna is on the move. So if one stopped down to f/8, then you'd need ISO 3200 (and there would be a lot of noise). Besides, the only thing out of focus is some spines, no EV is lost. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - He doesn't have to be on the move to take a photo of him, and how can you say that losing some focus on some spines in unimportant? It's an echidna! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But plenty of spines are in focus. The ones that are not in focus don't necessarily tell us anything about the spines that the in-focus ones do not. But I agree with you, the difficulty of conditions for this particular photo aren't sufficient to justify a support vote when superior lighting conditions are conceivable. But I quite like the diffuse lighting. If it were taken on a sunny day in broad daylight, I don't think it would be as aesthetically pleasing. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think it's of good quality. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Sweet-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Jujutacular ^talk 22:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]