Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:LynxInNumedal.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:LynxInNumedal.jpg - not featured[edit]
File:LynxInNumedalPortrait.jpg
The section of the image on the right hand is not for nomination but to show that the view of the animal is not really boring (it is - if you just look at the 300px version)
Info taken, uploaded & nominated by Andreas Tille
Support --Luc Viatour 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Support - amazing pic from the wild - MPF 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - i dislike the plants that are out of focus. i find them distracting-LadyofHats 09:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)- Support I dont care about the plant out of focus... ;) --Jacopo86 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Great. I even intended the plants out of focus because I wanted to streß the animal. Andreas Tille 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Zoo shot, not a shot that denotes personality of the cat... --Tomascastelazo 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry but do we evaluate the image or where it was shot? Since when are zoo shots not acceptable for FP? Andreas Tille 19:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is not where it was shot, the cat seems uninteresting (to me). Generally zoo shots do not show the animals in motion, or their natural level of alertness, etc. Your picture Image:WolfInNumedal.jpg, for example, is a much, much better image. That is my opinion.--Tomascastelazo 15:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is way too much stress on pretty pics here and too little on encyclopedic value. Where a photo was taken is very essential information. Especially when a natural subject is taken out of its natural environment. This is not a natural shot and that should be made very clear. For this photo the description was removed, so the fact that it was shot in a zoo is only visible in the file history. That doesn't make it a bad photo, though, I'm just reacting to the question whether this info matters. DirkvdM 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint that I have removed the Zoo information. It just was a mistake when I switched from the simple upload text to my description template. It is readded now and it was not intended to hide information (which can be obtained from the source page anyway). On the other hand I continue to fail in seeing the difference between a Zoo shot and a wildlife shot. I think the difference can probably be seen on a video, but I certainly doubt that a blind study containing wildlife and Zoo shots will show that people are able to separate these two groups. So the missing information was a drawback for the image but this is fixed now. Andreas Tille 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't see the difference, but I'm pretty sure that in general animals behave differently in captivity. Then again, a realistic representation would be a series of random shots. By selecting the nicest photo, we also manipulate how people view animals. There's a constant friction between truth and beauty in photography. DirkvdM 09:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint that I have removed the Zoo information. It just was a mistake when I switched from the simple upload text to my description template. It is readded now and it was not intended to hide information (which can be obtained from the source page anyway). On the other hand I continue to fail in seeing the difference between a Zoo shot and a wildlife shot. I think the difference can probably be seen on a video, but I certainly doubt that a blind study containing wildlife and Zoo shots will show that people are able to separate these two groups. So the missing information was a drawback for the image but this is fixed now. Andreas Tille 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I find it boring and light is not good. Francisco M. Marzoa 10:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with FMM Tbc 09:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong support
3 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 10:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
