Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Siberian Tiger - Makari

Siberian Tiger - Makari

 * Reason:Stunning Panthera tigris altaica photograph with very high resolution. I think its quality supercedes previous photographs.
 * Articles this image appears in:Tiger, Siberian Tiger
 * Creator:


 * Support as nominator --A302b (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The background seems to have a fence which IMO is a bit distracting and easly blurrable. Muhammad (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the best siberian tiger picture I could find, although I agree it would be better with a blurred background. Unfortunately, I don't want to mess the picture up, and don't know how to do this. It isn't my picture, and I don't know a lot about editing photographs. I just did a lot of searching to find the best tiger picture I could find with a free license. Are you (or anyone else) able or interested in adding blur? A302b (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

--Wronkiew (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Picture removed from both artciles, where they had been put today, replacing better ones. Not a good practise to use articles just for the purpose of hoisting FP candidates. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I didn't know. I honestly thought this is the best image available, and looked through the various tiger pictures. I didn't know that editing pages and nominating at the same time wasn't allowed. I am willing to withdraw this nomination if it is against the rules. But I still think it is a better picture than the ones that were there previously. Is there a page where there are different versions of a picture and people can choose which one is best for the topic? This version has such better resolution and sharpness, and shows the subject clearly. A302b (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not against the the rules so there's no need to withdraw. That said I Weak Oppose because it's a bit soft/low DOF, slightly too many blown highlights and poor background and a cursory glance at commons:Category:Panthera tigris altaica suggests that these are relatively common in zoos and a better image shouldn't be too hard to take. --Fir0002 10:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I still prefer the original, as it seems sharper to me (clearer eyes, etc), and is much higher resolution quality. I agree the background is unfortunate. A302b (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. I didn't take the picture, but spent a long time searching. I was unable to find any better (sharp) pictures with such high resolution that also had a free license. A302b (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This may or may not be the best image for illustrating tiger fur (scary thought?), as it shows the fur both dry and wet. I found that interesting, and will be observing how this nomination goes. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose out of necessity, since it's not being used in any articles. The composition is not as good as the existing FP, although this one is more detailed.  Still, we can hope for a better tiger headshot than either this or the existing FP.--ragesoss (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)