Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Eastern banjo frog white bg.jpg

Eastern Banjo Frog
Eastern Banjo Frog, Limnodynastes dumerilli, on a white background. Specimen is approx 60mm in length, taken in Swifts Creek, Victoria in January 2007


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 11:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support as strongly as possible - practically perfect in every way. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice detail, especially on the eye. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-05 13:25Z
 * Oppose - Ugly whitish border around the animal, most visible near the mouth and legs, probably resulting from light reflections off the white background. Shallow DOF. - Alvesgaspar 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for two reasons, the former being the text above and the latter Pstuart84's reason below. Not a fan of the shadow, nor the background itself. -Phoenix 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: per Vanderdecken.  ~   St ep  tr ip   17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm slightly put off by photos that take a creature out of its natural environment and put it in such a sterile environment when what we are trying to capture is encyclopedicity.  We lose all the value derived from context.  Pstuart84 Talk 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is precisely for the value of enc that I put it on the white bg. Here you can see the frog in all detail without any distractions - why do you think scientists and sites like CSIRO use images of insects etc on a white background? Anyway it's natural environment is not very aesthetic.
 * I love the dark frog on the sandy background! If the whole frog was in focus, I think the picture you linked would be much better than the one you nomiated for featured status.  Additionally, you wouldn't have the white edge reflection problem that's got me on the edge on support or not. Enuja 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: great image, I like it --HadzTalk 19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. Just where do you find all these cute animals? --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He lives in Australia... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Great detail where detail is most needed.--HereToHelp 14:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Very high quality image. As with just about any macro shot, DOF could be better but everything that needs to be seen is in focus - only the far side of the frog is OOF and we can safely assume that the frog is symmetrical. With regards to the sterile white bg vs natural habitat, I think both images may have their use in the article (particularly if there are no superior images) and you will have benefits and drawbacks to either. I agree completely with Fir0002 that it is both common and common sense to photograph objects on a neutral white background in order to isolate the subject from its surroundings. It doesn't make it unencyclopaedic. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support People sure seem to be hesitant of giving Fir more featured pictures! This is extremely encyclopedic and high-quality. Jellocube27 00:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support High-quality, encyclopaedic, shows all the detail on the frog, don't see why it shouldn't be featured. BeefRendang 04:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Great Macro shot, the white background is perfect for encyclopedic articles. ~ Arjun  02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support- It's taken by the ledgendary Fir0002! So therefore it needs to be featured XD (and for above reasons)--Penubag 08:23, 13 April 2007