Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sus scrofa f. domestica Hängebauchschwein.jpg

File:Sus scrofa f. domestica Hängebauchschwein.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2016 at 22:17:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sus scrofa f. domestica Hängebauchschwein.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sus scrofa f. domestica Hängebauchschwein.jpg

1954

313

1119

579

4288

2848

white parts blown in this area --Kreuzschnabel 10:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 00:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Klasse. ..Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Swell. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I can practically smell it with this detail ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support flawless --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Hello Gorgeous! --w.carter-Talk 08:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Level of detail is impressive but the whole picture is overexposed IMHO, or at least overprocessed, since the white parts on the top (see annotation) are definitely blown and melted into one white area. As for composition, I don’t see anything special here, and I usually don’t find up-down views onto animals (or, worse, children) too attractive. My personal opinion of course, but altogether this lacks wow for me plus shows quality flaws, though EV is certainly given. --Kreuzschnabel 10:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but agree with Kreuzschnabel. Our main- and sub- categorys show me much better exposed images: Category:Pot-bellied_pig_in_zoos. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose For FP I think a picture on eye level (of the animal ;-) would be a reasonable viewpoint --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Berthold Werner. This is a very good image but it has that touch of human taking a photo of an animal. If you have lowered the camera position, you would have transported the viewer into the world of pigs. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Info I made a better update. The whole picture is not overexposed and is not overprocessed. Kreuzschnabel please have a look. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better but I still don’t like the looking-down perspective. Admittedly, nearly all shots of this species on Commons have been taken that way, one of the exceptions being this one which isnt featurable for other reasons but gives a better impression of the animal. --Kreuzschnabel 04:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose seems over-exposed and photographer should have got lower. Charles (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 02:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)