Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Eastern bearded dragon.jpg

Eastern Bearded Dargon

Eastern Bearded Dragon in the undergrowth of a Blackberry bush

Edit 1 by Fir0002, lightened shadow on snout

High quality and enc image taken outside the studio (not on a piece of paper) for a change. Quite difficult shot to get without anything obstructing him in the undergrowth. Specimen is about 25cm in length from head to tail.

Appears in Eastern Bearded Dragon

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 01:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, detailed, nice to have it in the creature's natural environment. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support You'd be hard-pressed getting one as enc as that in the studio! Angle, moment and context are all spot on. Great shot, well done. mikaul^talk 10:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support contributes significantly to the article its in; it als has an interesting composition and very few technical flaws - except the blurry tail --Hadseys 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and no vote)-- is the snout that color or is that the shadow of the plant? Spikebrennan 13:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the shadow --Fir0002 04:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm afraid that my vote is Oppose since the image makes it look like the animal has a darkened snout tip, whereas in real life the animal doesn't.Spikebrennan 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the edit --Fir0002 22:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The edit is actually worse in that it makes it more likely that a viewer of the picture would get a mistaken impression of what the animal looks like. Spikebrennan 03:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? The edit has corrected the darkened snout so it now appears as it would normally! --Fir0002 06:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit, the snout tip still looks darkened to me. If you are telling me that the edit actually reflects the true color of the animal's snout, then I will take your word for it and withdraw my oppose vote. Spikebrennan 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well without completely flattening out the shadow and creating a 2D look to the face, yes it is a natural colouration --Fir0002 12:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support meets all the criteria for a FP, looks good overall, however I wish the tail was in focus and there wasn't the couple of twigs going across his body. Zakolantern 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Sorry, but I'm finding that shadow spot on its nose to be highly distracting. Circeus 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you'd prefer the edit --Fir0002 04:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While it does lighten it significantly, it also makes it look more like the normal coloring. Circeus 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry I might be misunderstanding what you said, but surely it looking like normal coloring is a good thing? --Fir0002 06:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, the opposite. Basically, I find this to be a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" case: Darker is distracting, lighter looks like the natural color, which is no better as it is misleading. Circeus 19:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why is it misleading? If I was game enough I could have pushed the blackberry stalk ever so slightly to remove the shadow. The image without the shadow isn't suddenly giving him an extra toe or something, it is an entirely realistic depiction of the subject. Just because it was done in Photoshop and not the darkroom it is suddenly taboo? --Fir0002 22:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too messy to get a "wow" from me. --Janke | Talk 11:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice pic, but I don't see why it should be featured. Agree with Janke on the messyness. --Dschwen 11:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm looks like white backgrounds are to be preferred then? Because this is it's natural habitat, and therefore very enc and any "messiness" is unavoidable. --Fir0002 06:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't go assuming my reasons. Natural background is fine, the picture is not. It has harsh flash(?) lighting and the green stem ruins the comopsition (apart from adding a shadow). I'm sure you were just lacking a bit of luck with this uncooperative subject, but sometime that's just what it needs to make a really outstanding pic. --Dschwen 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well in the case you have an unrealistic understanding of the environment. I took maybe 20 shots of him and this was the only one without anything obstructing him. Blackberry bush undergrowth (his natural environment) is dense and messy. That's just real life. Yes it was taken with a flash, but it was diffused and aimed in line with the sunlight so it looks no different from a shot taken with stronger sunlight (it was slightly overcast when I took the shots, hence the need for a flash). So personally I don't find the lighting harsh at all, but that's just my opinion.--Fir0002 22:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the angle is too high, giving a bad perspective on the subject and where it is. That is to say, a lower angle would have given context to the picture. The compositioin leaves me hanging, a small bit of ground just doesn't do it for me in terms of context. -Fcb981 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's rather an unusual comment really. Taken from a low down angle you'd get maybe his head and shoulders and the rest would be completely OOF [1]. Secondly it was taken on a slope so the angle is correct, with the barrel of the lens being close to the horizontal. I can provide a wider uncropped image if you want more context, but honestly I think that's just going to introduce more "messiness" and is entirely unnecessary as the subject is the lizard and not the undergrowth. --Fir0002 22:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well it isn't really that unusual that I'm not a fan of the composition of a picture, but in most cases there are other technical problems that I can cite as reasons for opposition (i'll mention composition in those cases as well). the picture you linked too is better overall in my opinion. while I like opening up a picture that is 9000 pixles wide and seeing tack sharp lines, Composition and lighting are much more important. See, in the picture you linked to, I may have tried an ultra close up, filling the sensor with the subject but I also would have taken the camera back a meter, stoped down to f/18 (screw diffraction), and crop. I'd settle for unoptimal sharpness but have a picture that has more context and a DOF that covers the subject. -Fcb981 16:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess that's where we'll just have to disagree - you may be happy to settle for suboptimal sharpness, I don't. Even with your proposal at f/18 you'd still get far less of the lizard in focus (remember from snout to tail he measures 25cm!) - f/18 doesn't give you that much more DOF than f/11. Stepping back and cropping wouldn't bridge the gap either - that picture I linked was a pretty heavy crop off an image taken at about f/6.3. But stepping back wasn't even an option here - keep in mind this is taken inside of a blackberry thicket! So really, and I speak acknowledging my bias, the composition in terms of DOF and aesthetics is pretty close to optimal. --Fir0002 12:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two thoughts (I dislike the bold comment): First, I like the lighter nose. I usually believe that anything I (personally) can do quickly and easily in a film (analog) darkroom is acceptable manipulation of an image. This certainly qualifies and should in no way be considered a problem. Second, I think photographing in a natural habitat adds to enc value over a studio / white background, even if it is more "messy". However, this is of course an opinion; some people will always oppose one, some the other. I personally will support a great example of either (except for my like of a sense of scale), and would strongly urge everyone to do the same. Zakolantern 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your thoughts Zakolantern --Fir0002 12:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unfortunately, one of the twigs under it is positioned exactly wrongly. "Off with its head!", if you see what I mean. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]