Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/White-fronted Capuchin monkey

White-fronted Capuchin monkey



 * Reason:An interesting photo of an important member of the South American wildlife. Also a difficult picture to take, considering the unquietly behavior of that animal.
 * Articles this image appears in:White-fronted Capuchin
 * Creator:Whaldener Endo


 * Support as nominator Exlibris (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Very good composition and subject, although the image is slightly soft and noisy. I've made an edit with slightly improved noise levels, and slight sharpening too. Its hard to make much of an improvement without messing with the details though, as the hair tends to be degraded in the process of applying strong noise reduction. Preference for Edit 1. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 05:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Either Good composition! Excellent portrait. Clegs (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support the bright sky patches are a bit distracting, but a good picture. Muhammad (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Better sharpness that the original and first edit. Excellent subject and composition and applicable to the article. Seddon69 (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats ironic. There is absolutely no difference in sharpness of the subject between edit 1 and edit 2. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 02:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support either bless him, he's so cute --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. Unsure exactly what was done for edit 2. The haloes don't bother me that much, although they make the temperature go up. What temperature was it, if I may ask? Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit 2 used edit 1 as a base. Fir0002 has made changes to the blue haloes around the highlights, desaturating them so that they're less noticable. Fir0002, its not chromatic aberation though - just the out of focus borders between the highlights and shadows. In other words, bokeh, but not as pretty as it usually looks because of the sharp lines of overexposure. Still, a slight improvement. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 02:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it is chromatic aberration - although the Purple fringing article says it's not always caused by CA. Also have a look at this review of a cheap lens with bad chromatic aberration - if you scroll down to the bottom of the page (just above the verdict) you'll see an example of CA which is found at the contrasting edges of light and shadow --Fir0002 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still pretty positive that its not. CA occurs in a different way to that seen in this image. For one thing, the fringing would not be nearly as large. It is usually only a couple of pixels in width, especially in the centre of the frame, and you will usually see red/purple on one side and blue/cyan on the other side. As per the DPReview explanation, purple fringing is not specifically a property of the lens. The blue fringe that you see in the original image here is simply the blue sky that has not overexposed, as the out of focus light has 'mixed' (for want of a better word) with the dark shadow to create the bokeh I was referring to previously, to the point where it is not overexposed, whereas the centre of the light sources that are overexposed to absolute white have not. Hopefully that makes sense. I'm not sure how well I've explained it, but the theory is sound. :-) Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just noticed your last post and have to agree that most of the green/blue fringing is as you say, but the more magenta stuff towards the edges looks like classic compact camera CA to me.   ok, I've had a proper look and on second (third?) thoughts you're absolutely right on all counts. It's possible that the green correction you often get from shots in trees has given a very CA-like look to the blown sky. I like it even less now ;o) --mikaultalk 10:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re Diliff: Ah right! I get you! Thanks for point that out as I would have always attributed that effect to CA --Fir0002 11:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pre-focussed on the tree trunk below, leaving most of the subject soft and artifacted. The fringing (definitely CA, always worse towards the edges of the frame) has left a particularly un-enc purple rinse to the chap's head & sealed it for me. Good expression etc, just not FP quality. --mikaultalk 10:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But it isn't worse towards the edges of the frame at all, its exactly the same no matter where in the frame, and is a thick cyan colour. Hence I think its the bokeh at the edge of overexposure. You're right though, the very slight purple fringing is CA, but that isn't the significant fringing we were discussing. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, just realised you addressed it above at basically the same time as my reply. Nevermind. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose the light is terrible, the bokeh is gross and unsightly. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose a very good photo, but not great compared to our other FPCs of mammals. Kind of noisy, and I don't care for the light. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)