Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Amur Tiger Panthera tigris altaica Eye 2112px.jpg

Image:Amur Tiger Panthera tigris altaica Eye 2112px.jpg

Original EXAMPLE: Picture #1: Picture #2:

•  Info Taken by Julie Ramsey. Prepared, uploaded and nominated by Derek Ramsey. 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Info The eye of a Siberian Tiger (Panthera tigris).
•  Info The first picture is not the same as the picture that started this nomination but is the unmodified original and is shown as an example. The second image was nominated and the third image was an image edit by Chris_huh. -- Ram-Man 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture #1 - not featured

•  Support — Cool! — H92 (t · c · no) 14:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Info This would benefit from some work in Photoshop. The blacks look washed out, but that should be easily fixable. --MichaelMaggs 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that you mention that. If you look at the file upload history, you'll see that I intentionally darkened the blacks from the original version. I, and some others I showed it to, prefer the one with darker blacks and more contrast. Perhaps it's personal preference or something, but on my monitor the blacks appear fine. But yes, the detail is just not there. Cest la vie. -- Ram-Man 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I do not feel like any specific subject asserts itself within the photo. I'd prefer to see either more of the animal at large or more detail of a specific part; not an in-between area. ...Would it be too much to ask for a closer photo? :) Decent detail, though. Also: the blacks appear washed out on my screen. --Thisisbossi 02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I asked the zookeeper if I could go in the cage and take better photos. Apparently they'd eat me, or so he says. :) -- Ram-Man 03:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The colour needs to be impoved, it's too cold and flat with not enough contrast. I would support a good edit I think --Benjamint444 10:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support it could be brighter but i like the moment --Bergwolf 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• This was shot through glass on a snowy day when myself and another professional photographer were unable to get a great shot of this animal. My wife, who took this picture with her point-and-shoot, managed to capture what was in my biased mind a special shot. The camera wasn't able to capture the subtle detail in the black hairs and the resulting contrast was too low. I darkened the blacks (because there wasn't much detail there and it was a little noisy) to increase the contrast. The original version is still in the file history. -- Ram-Man 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment - Please make a separate nomination for each version! - Alvesgaspar 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

 Info Please place new votes below. Vote for (or against) one or both.

•  Support -- Ram-Man 15:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose colour cast Lycaon 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Ram-Man 11:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Re: the closing. I know it makes little difference, but the above votes were at least cast for picture #1 below, if not for both pictures. If the first picture should be closed, then all the votes under "Picture #1" should be counted. As a result, I've updated the count. -- Ram-Man 11:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture #2 - featured

•  Support (I prefer this color corrected version) -- Ram-Man 15:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• I uploaded a photoshopped version with better colour, hows that? I missed that Info bit up the top about the version history, woops, having both next to each other still allows for better comparison i guess. Chris huh 09:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it? It is fantastic. Just zoom in on that eyeball and may I never get that close to anything that carnivorous.  Support edited version. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support new version. Thanks. -Susanlesch 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer 06:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - One of the nicest things in Commons:FPC (unlike WP:FPC) is that we can vote for the pure beauty of an image without having to prove its encyclopedic value... Alvesgaspar 07:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I still think it could be better, but maybe the colour tones would no longer be realistic?--Benjamint444 07:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 13:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose colour cast Lycaon 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I can't really explain it, but I really don't like the angle, for some odd reason it seems very "uncomfortable" to me (I still can't figure out a good way to explain this, I'm very sorry). Maybe it's something about how the top of the eye is covered by the lashes, or the composition. --Pharaoh Hound 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support the colours in this one do seem more natural than the others. Chris huh 11:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

 8 support, 2 oppose >> featured - Alvesgaspar 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)