Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Grooming monkeys.jpg

Olive Baboons Social Grooming
Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2010 at 15:30:20 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality, EV and an Interesting view. Did very well at commons FPC.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Social grooming, Olive Baboon
 * Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, lovely :) J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What happened to the nose? It looks smudgy. --Dschwen 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't touched it. Probably DOF problem --Muhammad (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose All I do like this shot but for me the DOF is just way too shallow. The background doesn't look anywhere near distracting enough to warrent the shallow DOF that it's been given. JFitch   (talk)  17:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Great image - while there may not be a need for a shallow DOF, I don't think that there is a need not to have one, either. The main subject, the faces of the monkeys, stand out and are of good quality as I view it, which is why I support. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 02:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 Seems to address the only problem people have noted with the original. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your mass sharpening hasn't solved the problem, plus you've now added a whole lot of noise to the picture. It needs to be done better and masked correctly, or better still just re shot. JFitch   (talk)  15:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should be sure of what you're talking about before you use bold type. There is no mass sharpening, it's inverse selective sharpening, for starters. Did you look at the full size image, as you were specifically instructed to because the thumbnailer is broken? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't inverse sharpening be blurring? ;-) --Dschwen 16:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would probably help bringing your point across if you weren't using terms that you just made up yourself (0 results). --Dschwen 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit has added a bit of noise but IMO the sharpness is much better. Doesn't look oversharpened to me. Could you please apply a slight NR as well, PLW? Thanks. If it were so easy to shot this in the first place, it would have been done sooner --Muhammad (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, uploaded over the top - refresh your caches or full view, as usual. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what i was talking about, i have no idea what you just made up though. Yes the sharpening has made it sharper, it has not fixed the DOF problem however which is a different issue. Inverse selective? sorry? Despite not being anything at all...there was clearly no selection involved, or did you deliberately add noise to the BG ? JFitch   (talk)  21:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * support either version. It's illustrative and aesthetically good. I don't see why and how a bigger DOF would make it any better. --Ikiwaner (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1: Very cool improvement on a great image. The monkey being groomed looks so blissed out, :)   Mae din\ talk 17:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

-- I'ḏ ♥  One  00:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I count (hover) -7- supports, a majority of -4- to the edit, -1- oppose. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  00:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)