Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis (mating).jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- Info Very carefully... created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon 00:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 00:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support How did you manage to get so close? Calibas 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Check the coordinates, on google maps (e.g.). Zoom in satellite mode to 50m (in Google earth you can zoom even further) and select the current picture (left panel). You see a few cars at the waterhole. That's about where we were... Lycaon 10:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Dori - Talk 03:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 06:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 08:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, i like it, but isn't it a little underexposed? --Aqwis 12:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I don't see any exposure problems. --Relic38 16:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Neutral no anonymous votes please. Lycaon 19:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Walké 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support --LucaG 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR 20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This picture looks flat and the subjects aren't terribly sharp. I almost didn't oppose since I'm sure people will assume I'm just picking on Lyco, but the truth is I don't see a lot of wow here. --JaGa 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Vmenkov 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad lighting, bad camera angle. Midday light is not a flattering light to begin with. As with the camera angle, it makes the giraffes look short, as opposed to their natural height. The giraffes should have been photograhed by a low angle, highligting the contour of the animals against the plain, blue sky. They way the different backgrounds, the earth and brush and how the giraffes cut into them is displeasing. A little inteligent photograhic technique, like use of large aperture to render a shallow depth of field would have been of great help. Furthermore, giraffes mating, in my opinion, are no different than any other species, unless the image provides something extraordinary in the way of impact, surprise, anatomical characteristics, etc., therefore, I see no value on the fact that they are mating. At firt glance I thought it was mother and child. Now that I know what it is, well, then... he likes them small!!! --Tomascastelazo 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The angle could be better, both horizontal and vertical. /Daniel78 19:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- No it couldn't, sorry. This things happen for only seconds. In Namibia you are also not allowed to come out of your car in Etosha as to limit human disturbance, so choice of angle is very limited. These are wild animals in their natural environment so you take the opportunity you get, unlike in zoos or even at game ranches. Lycaon 20:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Too bad about the circumstances, for it could have been a good picture. The technical flaws, in my opinion, despite the circumstances, do not make this FP worthy material. Maybe in QI it has a chance. --Tomascastelazo 20:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well I am voting based on the image not on the circumstances. /Daniel78 21:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Daniel, same here, image, not circumstances. --Tomascastelazo 22:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't it time then that you start reading our guidelines? Lycaon 06:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have, my friend.... in fact I wrote most of them. However, the value system around here centers on sharpness, wow factor, HDR, pixelmania, artifacts, etc... not circumstances. Just going along with the folkways (and you can count on me on never opposing an image for reasons other than the ones I state)... --Tomascastelazo 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 10:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Good and very much appreciated for its uniqueness and usefulness. However, I don't think it's technically an FP. Samulili 20:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think it one of the best, even if it is unusual. /Ö 09:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support If you can't suggest a better angle or conditions, don't complain... The only way for this to be better would be in a zoo, and even then I don't know. That said, artificial blur on the background ("depth of field") could improve it. (There's some there, but it's not visible at low resolution.) Potatoswatter 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I smell a rat here. User Potatoswatter does not exist yet he seems to know how to pass as a user. The username page does not exist as of this posting... --Tomascastelazo 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's just because it's a new user, with nothing on either the user page or the user talk page. A welcome message has since been added. --MichaelMaggs 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Support I think I remember having come across this whilst browsing through other giraffe photos at en.wiki. It's encyclopedic, technically good, and good enough for FP, IMO. — RedCoat 19:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Voting time was over -- Benh 21:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh 20:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)