Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Common collared lizard

Common collared lizard
Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2010 at 23:46:58 (UTC)
 * Reason:This looks better at full size than it does as a thumbnail. A technically fantastic shot used well within the article- this angle is perfect to show off the pattern on the body, and especially on the neck, from which the lizard takes its name- altogether a very well executed shot. Already featured on Commons.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Common collared lizard, Crotaphytidae
 * FP category for this image:Reptiles
 * Creator:Dschwen


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional support This is a really well done photograph. It is very sharp, the focus is perfect, and the fine detail on the lizard looks neat at full zoom (besides being colorful). However, I think trying to get the entire lizard in the frame (close to the very tip of its tail) is not only unnecessary, but detracts from it. I just cropped a 2573 × 1810 section and thought it much improved. 00:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you do that?! There is another shot of the same lizard linked on the image page where I was closer to it. No need to shoehorn the full view into an artificial close-up if there is an actual close-up. --Dschwen 01:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ‘Cause… this one is better than those? And would look even better (IMHO) if cropped closer? Some two-thirds of the image area here is devoted to giving room for that tail. If cropped closer, I think it would be really, really good and would be solid FPC material. I don’t need to see the dust mites on the tip of its tail; that gorgeous, fine detail on the lizard’s body combined with the depth of field-control (and many other variables) are what sets this apart from others. Greg L (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhm... I was talking about this one. --Dschwen 02:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That’s a pretty nice picture too. You just barely squeaked by with the focus zone, didn’t you? But I’m judging this picture in the context of it adding EV for the two articles you linked to. For me, I thinking it is unfortunate and undesirable to have so much photo area dedicated to the proposition of framing a highway that stretches from Washington state to Kansas. It ought to be cropped tighter and then it would be very, very good indeed. Greg L (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by barely squeaked by with the focus zone? In the picture I linked to the entire lizzard minus the tail (which you apparently don't care about) is in perfect focus. There is no barely and certainly no squeaking. *shakes head* --Dschwen 13:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support in current form. I disagree with the above and feel the space added by the inclusion of the tail adds to the composition of the shot, and also accurately illustrating it's long tail that may not be clear in other shots, which is important as it a significant feature of this lizard. Jfitch (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice use of DOF, everything in focus that needs to be with pleasing bokeh. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - As above although the camera position is not the best. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice photo -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I'm liking it... — raeky  T  00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Wonderful! --Mbz1 (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Noodle snacks (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support--Avala (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)