Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Goats in mountains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Goats in mountains

I found this image when I went to read about goats. I like the image very much. Whenever I look at it, I desire to be one of those goats, running free in the mountains, free from stress and admins. I also find the background stunning, with the mist in the mountains. It seems that user Fir0002 created the photo -- and that dude created 37 featured photos! I think that a part on the left side of the photo could be removed, because there's something out there that can't be identified. Other than that, cool photo!

• Nominate and support. - Candide, or Optimism 14:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support The mist and dark clouds give the photo a mystical, magical quality. While it doesn't appear that the photo strongly supports either article to which it is attached (do we really have 18 photos illustrating the Goat article?), its a picture I can support. SteveHopson 15:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. While the image is great, the article subjects (the goats) aren't prominent enough. Which mountains are these? If you added the image to the mountains' article, then I would probably support. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 15:49

• Neutral. I like the scene and composition but the highlights are extremely overexposed. I've tried to burn them back a little to make the most of the detail that was left. I don't feel happy enough about it to support it completely, but I'll put it out there for you guys and if you prefer it, you have an alternative to the original, at least. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for your edit, but the goats are in fact pure white and therefore the original picture I feel is much more true to life. --Fir0002 www 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't change the colour of the goats at all. I just recovered some texture in the highlights. Even something that is white will look golden when the source of light (in this case, I assume dawn, but possibly sunset) is golden. You have used that regularly in your photos and complained when people have REMOVED that effect, so you can't have it both ways. In any case, as I said, I never added a colour that wasn't there. I just decreased the luminosity of the existing colour so you can see detail in the highlghts. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I guess the irony was lost on ya :-)

But seriously, the goats are white, and appeared white in the lighting conditions the photo was taken in. They do not have much detail, even with the human eye they just appear white. Burning them as you did makes them look dirty - much too yellow IMO. Anyway an edit is always good as it allows the photographer to learn from what others want out of a photo. --Fir0002 www 05:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, whatever irony was there was lost of me. :) Please explayne! You can see that areas of the goats that were not directly facing the sun (roughly perpendicular) had a golden/orange tint. I see your point, but do you not see the problem in having no discernable detail due to overexposure? I don't accept that the goats had little detail/texture, if they were correctly exposed, you would see it. Perhaps my edit did burn the highlights too much, but ideally they should not be overexposed in the first place. Ah well. :) For what its worth, its a difficult scene to photograph well, but the moral of the story is underexpose if necessary to preserve highlight detail. Do you shoot raw? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Continued on Diliff's talk page --Fir0002 www 11:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like the pic description to tell us where these mountains are - Adrian Pingstone 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message on the author's talkpage, asking for the same thing. --Candide, or Optimism 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is taken in the only mountain range of Victoria - the Great Dividing Range. More specifically near Swifts Creek, Victoria Australia. --Fir0002 www 00:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Pretty pic but not a significant contribution to any article. I'm afraid my oppose will still hold even if the mountain is identified (because it's not really the subject of the photo). ~ Veledan • Talk 18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Incredibly dramatic photo, but would support more strongly if it fit better in an article. zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, yes, yes! ^KILO-_LIMA 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Only Support if pic went on Mountain goat DaGizza^{Chat ©} 07:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's nonsense. These are domestic goats (Capra aegagrus hircus), not mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus). - Samsara _contrib ^talk 17:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A nice picture, but it does not illustrate Goat particularly well - IMO, none of the pics on that page are FP worthy. (Also, these are domestic, not mountain goats.) --Janke | Talk 07:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Janke 100%. This a photo in need of a better home. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support a good picture. I'm sure it can fit into other articles too, perhaps fog?--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I can't see it fitting into any article well. --liquidGhoul 10:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: What is that square shaped object infront of the goat on the very far left? Maybe wood or something?--Ali K 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've never noticed that before! It looks more like an old crate or something --Fir0002 www 07:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, pretty but not particularily encyclopedic. --Dschwen 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support great pic, and those goats have a scary hypnotic look in their eyes. Robert Mercer 21:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Second Image Excellent angle! Nice background! In general, outstanding! Alvinrune ^TALK 23:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Love the mountains and mist, don't love the overexposed goats or tangential connections to the articles the pic illustrates. Mark^{your words} 17:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 03:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)