Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:AgamaSinaita01 ST 10.jpg

Agama Sinaita

 * Reason:Amazing composition, good EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:Agama sinaita
 * Creator:ST


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Well, aren’t you prolific? Very, very well done! Greg L (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. My support vote may apply to either. Greg L (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Unusual animals always make good FPs.  upstate NYer  01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Stunning! TheStig  t · c  06:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Perfect photo, nice colors -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support — raeky ( talk 12:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Head and shoulders are the only part of this animal in focus... Very unapealing at full res due to blur... Gazhiley (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Limited depth of field happens (a lot) in close-ups; particularly macro close-ups. Physics and optics. While your observation is entirely true, it strikes me as a bit overcritical, like faulting this portrait of Einstein because his ears and the hair behind is ears aren’t in focus. The photograph of Einstein is still interesting because his face is the most important part; similarly, this lizard’s head and shoulders, IMO. Greg L (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but just because there's a reason for it doesn't mean we should ignore it... FP nom's often get picked up for DOF issues so it amazes me no-one else has mentioned this... Gazhiley (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you can make a focus bracket, you just have to live with it. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, prefer edit. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the noise reduction pulled away a lot of the detail in the head, did you mask the head? — raeky ( talk 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The NR was done in sections - some parts of the head were least NR'ed, other areas more. Imo, noise is present all over the image. The human eye still does a better job of filtering it out, but FPC sometimes has low tolerance for acknowledging this fact. ^^ Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of that detail is minor artifacts. I prefer them smoothed out. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support any Beautiful! Luca (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Elekhh (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for the original. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Both version are very beautiful and amazing. Hive001   contact  16:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, prefer edit Per all above, a stunning shot. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support either, prefer original as it has more detail and negligible noise IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenue (talk • contribs) 09:41, 3 May 2010
 * Weak oppose. I find myself echoing the concerns of Gazhiley a little.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 21:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don´t see much difference between the original and edit 1. - ☩  Damërung   ☩   .  -- 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support--Avala (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Cool lizard! I don't see a major difference between the edit and the original, so support either. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Hmm, looks like something from Avatar. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din\ talk 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I acted too hastily in promoting the original. If you have a preference for either the original or the edit, would you please state it in the next couple of days. Thanks!  Mae din\ talk 10:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies; it would appear that an almost identical edit uploaded over the original, after the alternative was produced, has confused the discussion (and me). I consider at least two preferences for the original null, then, and will alter the promotion accordingly.   Mae din\ talk 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din\ talk 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)