Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iguana iguana in la manzanilla.jpg

File:Iguana iguana in la manzanilla.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 02:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Iguana iguana in la manzanilla.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iguana iguana in la manzanilla.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Taken in its natural habitat. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support adipoLi -- aghith 05:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose the cutted of tail and the disturbing foregound spoils it imo... But a nice photograph for such a difficult motive and maybe a QI. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Parts of the body are covered... --Llorenzi (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment @ kaʁstn & Llorenzi: I find your oppose votes rather "curious". This image is about the iguana and its habitat. Iguanas live in mangroves, and mangroves are very thick vegetation, that provide cover and camouflage for many species [[1]]. To make out the iguanas in this case, and distinguish them from their environment is the objective, easily done by taking advantage of shallow dof of telephoto lenses, however, finding the iguanas is another thing. They hide! So to say that either the foreground is disturbing is odd, for the foreground is part of the natural scene, you will have plants before, alongside and behind the subject. In the case, it gives the image depth. To say that parts of the body are covered, well, of course! Some parts will always be! If I wanted a picture of an uncovered iguana, a studio shot would be called for, but alas! No habitat! This link will take you to the mangrove where this iguana lives… find it! [[2]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose too bright, poor composition. Tomer T (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Poor composition? It's a lizard that climbed a tree! :) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 08:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  •  Question Too bright? hardly, look at the histogram, your monitor may be off. Poor composition? Would you care to elaborate? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    • 1) It's funny you got the notion the problem is in my monitor. If it was the problem, I'd have to oppose every other picture as well for being too bright, wouldn't I? 2) The compostion issues were elaborated before, and you even cared to provied a long explanation to contradict these comments. I think FP should be something special. I don't find this one illustrative enough, because of the cut off and covered parts, and I don't find it impressive enough, as for the distracting motives. It' a great picture otherwise (can be QI and maybe even VI imo), but not enough for FP imo. Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
      • 1) Brightness: well, download the image into photoshop or any program that will give you a histogram. Data is data, and data wise, it is not a bright image. Zone-system wise, the gray scale is nicely distributed. This is a quantitative issue. 2) Composition wise, if you don´t like it, you don´t like it, with that, I am ok. And thanks for your review! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your clarification concerning the brightness. Tomer T (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Natural colours, sharp (especially the head), captured within the natural environment. I know how difficult it is to frame these 'long' reptiles. --Cayambe (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose only because of the messy composition - Benh (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)