Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ox

Ox

 * Reason:Image is highly encyclopedic, showing an adult Zebus found commonly in India. Cattles are major part of Agriculture in India and Hindu mythology. Picture is true-tone high-dynamic range shot. These are all done by taking the same shot with multiple exposures, combining the images, then tone-mapping the result. No distracting background.
 * Articles this image appears in:Ox
 * Creator:Ville Miettinen from Helsinki, Finland


 * Support as nominator gp pande  «talk» 15:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it is to dark, not useful and too generic and it has clearly been highly edited so is fulse. UNI| SOUTH  17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I don't know what you mean by too dark, some places are almost washed out. Not useful? This is a good shot that shows the whole animal, and as such is very useful. Too generic? What would you like a cow to be doing, jumping through flaming hoops? This is a perfectly composed, highly encyclopedic image. The issues that keep me from supporting are the lack of sharpness over most of the cow, which appears to be a DOF issue, and the funny color graduation in the sky, going from dark blue, to light blue in a halo around the animal, and back to dark blue. Clegs (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'd say there was a bit of artistic license involved, as I'm sure that vignetting isn't normal. It isn't evenly spread either. Might be due to the tone mapping or it might be a case of Photoshopping it in. It isn't a bad photo but neither is it an outstanding one. Its not that I'm calling it generic ( although generic is probably what we should want from a photo of a cow), but it takes up at most half of the frame, and I'd like to see it slightly more side on. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. HDR seems to be not only unnecessary, it also creates an unpleasing distracting vignetting effect. --Dschwen 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very synthetic look, distracting contrast, vignette doesn't work well for this image, poor HDR processing... Capital photographer (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * can someone suggest some method to improve this image? The image is original one if it little bit of work is needed please suggest. -- gp pande «talk» 09:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the first thing is to remove the vignetting, but that is very difficult and I still don't think it would make it a featured picture to be honest. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 3/4 support. This will differ between displays, but I can hardly make out the vignetting that other people are seeing. There seems to be a little bit of noise on the skin flap under the animal's neck. I also would have preferred a more lenient crop at the hooves - I have to go full size to be able to see that they are, in fact, fully in the frame. I shouldn't have to do that. All in all, while it's not a typical encyclopaedic picture, it will make a good eyecatcher on the front page.
 * PS: Vignetting can be fixed to a large extent - enough to be imperceivable. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly see the vignetting!? The cow is in a brilliant glowing halo! And it's not something that needs to be corrected; it probably wasn't there in the first place, just a side effect of poor exposure combination. Thegreenj 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're yelling at me?!!??!?!111! Talk to my display if you feel the need to be juvenile. Srsly. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see neither caps nor boldface, why would you think anyone is yelling?!oneeleven --Dschwen 12:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Distracting and unnecessary processing. Thegreenj 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Too unbalanced and out of proportion. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

. --John254 05:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)