Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Saint Usuge Spaniel

Saint Usuge Spaniel
Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 12:30:15 (UTC)
 * Reason:I believe that the image may meet all requirements of being a FP. I've placed it at peer review, where it hasn't received any comments (negative or otherwise) which I'm taking as a good thing. I've touched up and balanced the image in Photoshop and removed a copyright tag that the creator on commons placed there (original file is saved in the image history). This is my FP nomination, so I'm happy to be corrected if this is not up to scratch. For a little context - a Saint Usuge Spaniel is a rare breed working French spaniel which I didn't even know of until I found this image in the unidentified dogs category on Wikimedia Commons. I haven't described the color of the coat in the caption as this is the only color/pattern that appears in the breed.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Saint Usuge Spaniel
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
 * Creator:DanielV27 (On Commons, Miyagawa is nominator on WP)


 * Support as nominator -- Miyagawa     talk   12:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I’m sorry; I just don’t know how to deliver this honest opinion and soften the points any further. In my opinion, pretty much any half-way closeup photograph of a Saint Usuge Spaniel would illustrate the subject matter (the breed) just fine. What is sorely missing here is an important element of the image being especially eye-catching. The Photoshopping here has left the image, IMHO, with overly saturated colors and the color cast is off. The heavily overcast day probably led to a very muted, dull look to the image. Whereas overcast no-doubt softened the shadows, the image editing to counteract the flatness and to punch up the image left it with an artificial, overly processed contrast. And then there’s the lawn. It is what is is: one owned by a dog owner—and that of an active breed so it is sparse and worn. The totality makes this image look like one of millions of dog pictures, where the picture is Wife-Approved©™® for putting on Facebook because it is free of any visible dog droppings. Whereas this image is fine, it is far from exemplary, fine photography insofar as lighting, post-processing, and the background goes. Greg L (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Miyagawa, I'm sorry to say that there really isn't anywhere near enough participation at PR, which I think is a real shame. It was weeks before I got any comments on my picture when I posted it there some months ago, and when I did, there was not any consensus if it would pass. I took a gamble and tried for an FP anyway, and luckily it was promoted. I think that people expect criticism at PR, and it's not as bad to take as when a picture gets shot down here, especially if you are the photographer. Anyway, this pic for me is not quite up to FP standards due to reasons mentioned by Greg, but please do keep trying and don't give up! SMasters (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose it is indeed regrettable that activity on Picture Peer Review is far less. The technical execution of the image is, as Greg L mentioned, not up to par with most of the Featured Pictures however - for instance, the background is mediocre and distracting (especially the top edge). The colours of the image seem to be slightly unnatural (too cyan, or something). Maybe your computer monitor needs calibration. Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)