Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bearded dragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bearded Dragon

Simply oozes with primeval majesty. Adds significantly to the article as is the only pic taken in the wild.
Alternative versions: Image:Bearded dragon02.jpg, Image:Bearded dragon05.jpg

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 22:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm surprised this picture was put up as an FPC (and the other versions) because the back of the animal is very blurred. Yes, I know getting the Depth of Field is hard but we're judging the final photo and can take no account of the difficulties in taking it. Just as a piece of self-promotion have a look at "Adult Bearded Dragon" at the bottom of Bearded Dragon where I've got the whole animal in reasonable focus (but don't put it up for FPC, it's not good enough focus for that) - Adrian Pingstone 23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I really don't mind it the depth of field issue Adrian sees. The focus was obviously intended to be on the head in the first place. Circeus 23:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I like the composition and detail on the head, but I would've liked more of the lizard to be in focus. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 00:33
• Support Excellent photo, I like how the focus was done. -Jake0geek 07:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, nice photo but depth of field is just too small. I like to see all the scales, or at least some down its back. There's no reason to have such a shallow depth of field when it (appears to be) in full sunlight, and it's a lizard (they don't move that much). Pengo 07:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That is an Eastern Bearded Dragon, and you have even identified it as that with the binomial name. The article you placed it in, is for the Central Bearded Dragon (the article should be renamed). I have been meaning to create the Eastern Bearded Dragon article, as I have a pretty good photo from the wild as well. Just out of interest, I think that guy is a juvenile (maybe it should be included in the caption). --liquidGhoul 08:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Image:Bearded_dragon05.jpg. Shows much more of the lizard in focus. --liquidGhoul 08:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry but a picture shouldn't become featured just because the "head" looks goods while the rest is blurry. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Um that doesn't really make sense. It's head is the subject, why is that a problem? And I'm not saying it's gotta become an FP just because it has a head in focus body out of focus composition - I'm not even promoting that aspect. All I'm saying is that the DOF draws the attention to the most interesting part of the animal (it's head and claws) without the need of close cropping. I think it's pretty effect. But that just my opinion. --Fir0002 www 09:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fir, I very much admire your photography skills but in this case the very first thing I noticed was the blurry back-end, and from then on my pleasure in looking at the rest of the photo was spoiled. So that's why I opposed - Adrian Pingstone 10:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. You seem to run into a lot of photo opportinities. I like the composition of this one and the natural surroundings. DOF is a bit much though even for a purely asthetic image, and a lot too much for an encyclopedic one. --Dschwen 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Like liquidGhoul I prefer Image:Bearded dragon05.jpg where the DOF is much less jarring. I think an encyclopedic pic though should try to get the whole subject in focus even though I appreciate you have valid aesthetic reasons for the effect. Yes it's better than cropping but if you are saying that the lizard's head is the only subject of the photo then the pixel count is just too low. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Would be a nice image if it weren't for the fact that half the image is blurred and the background is extremely distracting to look at. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't mind the fact that the tail is blurred – in fact, I think that could even look good – but the depth of field is just too shallow in this image. Even the neck is out of focus. –Joke 20:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Good. ^KILO-_LIMA 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - DOF too shallow. --Janke | Talk 23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nobody has mentioned that it is extremely contrasty to the point where half the lizard is overexposed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. DoF is just too shallow, sorry. The "05" image isn't as bad though... I might support that one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I like the desaturation in this one, but the depth of field is marginally on the shallow side. 02 is better in that respect. Ideally just in between the two... - Samsara _contrib ^talk 02:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• This animal looks so much healthier than any of the others in the article that I must support. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't even be in that article, look at Fir's identification (which is correct), and the taxobox. --liquidGhoul 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You could be bold and remove it then. I dare you. ;) Fir0002? What do you say? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is still a Bearded Dargon, so that is the best home for it. So I say leave it were it is! Anyway, couldn't we add the "barbata" to the species list? --Fir0002 www 11:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My image above is a soldier crab, do you think it should go in the Soldier crab article? Secondly, I don't quite understand what you mean by add it to the species list, but you could add it to the Pogona article, and I have found that Pogona barbata is already an article. You could clean it up some and add it to there. --liquidGhoul 01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would rather be bold and create an article for the Eastern Bearded Dragon, but I have to wait until I can get access to my Australian reptiles book. --liquidGhoul 23:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support With any more DOF the image would be less attractive, and the background would be busy and distracting. --Gmaxwell 22:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Half of the image is blurry and the image, overall, is not up to the standard. Alvinrune ^TALK 00:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)