Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Crocodylus acutus 08.jpg

Image:Crocodylus acutus 08.jpg - not featured

•  Info created by User:tomascastelazo - uploaded and nominated by Tomas Castelazo--Tomascastelazo 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Mihael Simonič 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral Not very clear at first sight. The subject looks like its environment but, after all, that mimetic feature has helped the crocodyle to survive. --Javierme 21:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment Javierme - That is exactly the point... the subject in its environment and how it blends in. Up close and personal. To see a better example of this mimicing of the surroundings, see this picture Image:Crocodylus acutus 10.jpg --Tomascastelazo 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting shot, pity DOF is a lacking and there is a too much noise. Lycaon 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment Lycaon Yes, well, that is the way it is... next time I´ll ask the croc to stand still and say cheese, like dead crab shots in the safety and comfort of a cozy lab... :o) --Tomascastelazo 23:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Yeah, i can feel the suspense. The reflections are well captured and the head of croco is a good diagonal through the picture. -- Simonizer 17:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Support--MichaelMaggs 18:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much grain and noise. - Alvesgaspar 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment In the old days, high ISO speed films were used under low light conditions. Film was push-processed in order to gain contrast and detail, but always resulting in grainy images. In the new days, high ISO speeds are used under low light conditions, yielding what is called "noise" or the equivalent of grain. In this particular case, the subject was taken in its natural environment, late in the afternoon, under low light conditions. Using a lower ISO speed would have resulted in a blurred picture due to having to use lower shutter speeds. So, what do we want? a picture with noise (or grain) that is relatively sharp and considering the limitations of technology or a picture with low noise (or grain) that is blurred by movement? As in the old days, we have a grainy picture due to limitations of technology with a relatively frozen subject, and a bit low DOF that is not important in the general context of the image. So, the adverse conditions were: 1. low light 2. Hight ISO thus more noise 3. A moving subject and the result? 1. a relatively frozen subject. 2. A picture rich in content and context, 3. a close up of an elusive subject. Under adverse conditions, one must always sacrifice something. But point taken, next time I will carry studio equipment, tranquilizers and hire more crocs, and a platform to replace the mangrove so I can use a tripod... :o) --Tomascastelazo 16:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• • One more comment, to consider not necessarily for this image, but all images in general. Difficulty degree in photography judging is almost always an important variable, and judges are required to read the clues that point to that. In this case, digital photography lacks the dynamic range of analog photography. Dynamic range is the capacity of film (or chip) to register tonal differences within an image. So, here we have a subject that belongs to the middle of the tonal range of a gray scale with acceptable detail, and in the shade. The water reflects the sky in a manner that it is represented by aprox zone IX in the gray scale. That means the the light differential between a subject in the shade and a subject outside the shade is basically short, as neither the main subject is blocked towards the low side of the scale, well within the texture range, and neither the sky is blocked toward the high end of the scale (during the day, the reflection of the sky would have been extremely overexposed). So we have two subjects that belong to two different light conditions (and scales), sharing one tonal scale, in a medium that is known for a short dynamic range... (and I will spare you the details of climbing over mangroves...) Draw your conclusions. --Tomascastelazo 17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Support - MPF 14:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment A FP is supposed to be an exceptional picture, created by the talent of the photographer and/or the reunion of certain (difficult) conditions which concur to achieve a unique image. In the present case, and although we do not have fully controlled conditions, we can still wait for a better opportunity: a better light, a more cooperative animal, a more sophisticated camera or simply a younger, more patient and courageous photographer capable of mounting a tripod near the nose of the beast and wait for the oportunity. Alvesgaspar 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Alvesgaspar – WOW!!!!!!!! I am blinded by the brilliance of your critique, I am left breathless by the depth of you vision and speechless by the clarity of your discourse. Of course my image cannot match the technical difficulties you must have encountered in creating this masterpiece of encyclopedic value Image:The photographer.jpg; furthermore, yes, age has taken a toll on me, and sadly enough, as I grow old, so does my cowardice, therefore, gone are the days where I could have attempted to match your intrepid and fearless valor that you must have mustered to face these ferocious beasts Image:Girl and cat.jpg, that I suspect, must have made the strongest of the strong quiver with fear, except, of course, you. I truly apologyze to you for having desecrated this holy site with my humble attempt to contribute an image of a lowly reptile with such evident flaws, and having put your two neurons to work. I hope one did not burn out. --Tomascastelazo 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of you - please re-read the above and Above all, Be polite --MichaelMaggs 18:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• •  Comment I’m sorry if I have offended the readers of this page; that was not my intention. But I don’t like to be lectured about the way a picture should be evaluated and how I should act as a reviewer, especially by the author of the photograph under review. That is indeed a subtle form of impoliteness, much worse for me than any childish joke about my poor intelligence. Please forgive me of my mention to age. But again, I had no intention to offend; chances are that I’m much older than most reviewers here. Alvesgaspar 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    •  Comment I do not mind criticism, in fact, I welcome it truly, and my intention is not to lecture but to bring light into the world of photography. However, I firmly believe that there is a difference between liking a picture and evaluating a picture. Personal taste is just that, personal, and nothing can be said about that. If a person does not like cats, he/she just doesn't like cats, but it does not mean that a picture of a cat is either bad or lacks photographic merit. One must raise above personal likes or dislikes and recognize, according to well based criteria, the photographic merit of certain images, including those of subjects we may not like. In my opinion, value criteria is often either lacking or displaced. I read tons of oppose comments alluding to "technical flaws" such as noise or color or burned out areas or DOF, etc., etc., that make people miss the point of value of the image, specifically the encyclopedic value, on top of being totally baseless from the technical and photographic point of view, and depriving Wikipedia of a valuable opportunity to motivate people to participate and contribute. I see an over reliance of software trickery that hide the true nature of photographic talent and technique. Alvesgaspar, if you read my "lecturing" that brought about this unpleasant exchange, there was nothing in it that pointed to flaws in your judgement on the personal level, but was limited to technical explanations and well known photographic judging principles, in the spirit of raising awarness of how to judge photographs, not my photographs. I have been around photography for 35 years, and although I may not be the best photographer nor the most knowledgeable person in photography, I have accumulated lots of tricks and knowledge, which I will gladly share. This is not an arrogant statement, for whatever little knowledge I may have is useless to me, I already have it, it is only useful in the measure that it can be shared. I offer it to you and anyone who wants it. Just ask.--Tomascastelazo 04:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Look good. The pattern on its skin is amazing. Noise is not bad for such a large image. -- Lerdsuwa 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose leaf in the water and composition too narrow norro 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • •  Comment These guys emerge at random, leaf in the water, well, it was there where the croc emerged... Composition too narrow? well, it is a full frame close up, it is the format of the camera, nothing was cropped out. --Tomascastelazo 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 Comment I withdraw nomination.--Tomascastelazo 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

nomination withdrawn -  not featured Alvesgaspar 00:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)