Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Torcal Iberiensteinbock 2014.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:El Torcal Iberiensteinbock 2014.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 06:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Spanish ibex (Capra pyrenaica hispanica) at rocks in El Torcal, Andalusia
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC) 
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)- weak Support The composition is very good and the light pleasant - unlike the bokeh (sorry, I know there's almost nothing you can do) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Buying a 70-200 f2.8 lens :) --Tuxyso (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Nice. Perhaps you could try to fake the blur a bit on the other rock, might work? --DXR (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- DXR, that's an intersting idea. But I am unsure if such "blur enhancements" are accepted with regard to the encyclopedic accuracy of a photo. Are there other opinions on that topic? Probably moderate blur improvements do not remarkable change the expression of the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Jee 03:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and nice composition. --mathias K 06:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Weak support Nice image, the ibex is very sharp. But sadly as mentioned above, we can't do much about the slightly distracting bokeh. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The blurred rock at left is too prominent for me, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Jebulon, do you mean the "blurred rock" is bad in general or do you think a stronger blurred rock would be better? --Tuxyso (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- IMO, it is too big, and takes too much space in the picture (composition problem). Some say "weak support" for that. I say "oppose".--Jebulon (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Jebulon, do you mean the "blurred rock" is bad in general or do you think a stronger blurred rock would be better? --Tuxyso (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Totally agree with Jebulon, as I commented Tuxyso in QIC / my talk page during the nomination in QIC. To my perception he left rock is neither too blurry to ignore it nor too sharp to include it in the composition, sorry, Poco2 09:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Poco, I've nominated this photo with the knowledge in mind that you will oppose :) I can follow your argument (though I see less alternatives), nonetheless the photo is eye-catching enough for me (from motive and composition) to give a nomination a try. One question still remains: Is it eligible to add some additional blurr or is it problematic with regard to later encyclopedic usage? --Tuxyso (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Good question, I think that adding some blur would be still ok, because you could have also achieved it technically (bigger aperture or getting closer + smaller focal length). That said, I am not sure how the result would be... Poco2 15:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Poco, I've nominated this photo with the knowledge in mind that you will oppose :) I can follow your argument (though I see less alternatives), nonetheless the photo is eye-catching enough for me (from motive and composition) to give a nomination a try. One question still remains: Is it eligible to add some additional blurr or is it problematic with regard to later encyclopedic usage? --Tuxyso (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
