Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gippsland Water Dragon (P. l. howittii)

Australian Water Dragon
Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2012 at 13:21:40 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality capture of this shy species in its natural environment. Shows the full beastie, including the full laterally-compressed tail used for swimming, the nuchal and vertebral crests along its length, and the extended toes and claws used for climbing, making it high-EV. Also unlike other images of it taken elsewhere, this one clearly shows how the colouration provides camouflage against the grey lichen covered rocks along the waterways where it lives. Reptiles seem to be becoming few and far between at FPC.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Australian water dragon
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
 * Creator:jjron


 * Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support excellent photo, especially as it shows the effectiveness of these reptiles camouflage. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support highly encyclopedic picture, although Mrs. Crisco wouldn't like it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer edit Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Dull lighting and insufficient background contrast IMO. (This means, for example, that the under-chin coloured area has insufficient detail.) I prefer both File:Physignathus lesueurii howittii.jpg and (COI disclosure) File:Eastern_Water_Dragon_Clontarf.jpg, although yours is the best full-body shot.  The camouflage issue is a tricky one, but I  think it can be demonstrated without making the picture visually difficult, for example in File:Eastern_Water_Dragon_Clontarf.jpg the rock and skin colour are both clearly shown, but they do not blend into one another.  --99of9 (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the natural habitat is shady waterways. I guess we could drag in some heavy duty external lighting in the hope of catching one with it unaware, or else just settle for cut-off images taken in suburbia or wildlife parks where it will be out in the open, and sans that pesky camouflage (possibly a pure white b/g would go well). And when you actually open the image up to bigger sizes the camouflage doesn't make it 'visually difficult' at all, but it does work well at smaller sizes, a reflection of how camouflage works in nature. --jjron (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support My criticism is that quite a bit of the front, including the front is in partial shadow. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit added. Brand meister talk   00:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Tomer T (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support only orginial per nom. Clegs (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which one? I see one clear preference, but I'm hesitant to promote the edit on such a thin indication, also due to the significant burnt highlights (and there's a late "per nom" vote as well). Can we get some more hands before this ends up yet another addition to the D&R queue? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the edit, but I'll have a look on a decent monitor first. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd oppose the edit for blown highlight reasons, but it does look closer to my experience with the species. What about using curves instead of the brightness tool, or masking the adjustment a bit? JJ Harrison (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

--Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it's not a promotion without Clegs' vote, and others only expressed preferences, I'm giving it to the original. If JJH or others want to upload something lighter, it can go through D&R. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)