Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Image:Varecia variegata foot with toilet-claw

Varecia variegata foot with toilet-claw


This images shows a close, detailed view of a ruffed lemur's foot and toilet-claw, anatomical features rarely seen in this much detail by the general public.


 * Creator:Visionholder


 * Nominated by: Visionholder (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Hi there, Visionholder! Long time no see. I see that you're moving everywhere around the encyclopedia. Keep it up.


 * Anyway, I don't really think I would support this at FPC, it's really only a foot. A detailed image of the actual image would be great, though. Could you take one? &mdash;  Ceranthor   ( Sing ) 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean a picture of the full animal, I have a few posted (such as Image:Varecia_variegata_suspensory_posture1.jpg and Image:Varecia_variegata_suspensory_posture2.jpg, but they've got noisy backgrounds or less-than-perfect lighting, so they're not good candidates for FPC. I was hoping the close-up photos of specific lemur features might earn something... but if not, I'll keep trying.  It may just take me a while to get some FPC-quality pictures, since I need both a better camera and a chance to photograph lemurs outside of a zoo setting.  As for photographing anything else like this, that's not likely.  These photos were taken during a yearly physical exam that I was able to attend, and the SB Zoo's entire lemur colony is leaving the zoo next year.  I won't get this chance again for at least another year, if I'm very, very lucky.  Thanks anyway for your feedback!  –Visionholder (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually think this is really good shot, considerably better than the one below, and of excellent EV when you realise what it is illustrating (it made go and check out the related article; I had never heard of toilet claws before). Unfortunately the quality is again a bit short (that digital zoom again, and shutter speed on this one is even slower). Also the background isn't ideal, though you probably can't really get these things to pose for the photo under normal circumstances, and other than that composition is pretty good. I have downloaded this and am going to have a bit of a fiddle with it to see if can help out at all with the quality issues, though honestly I doubt I'll be able to do enough unfortunately. Will drop a note with how I go. --jjron (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave it a try. I can help a bit with sharpness, but it loses a lot of size (essentially 'undoing' the digital zoom effect) which is OK, but unfortunately there's a awful lot of noise, especially on the dark fur in the background. I tried noise reduction but anything strong enough to begin to fix the noise wipes out too much detail in the fur, etc. The edited version did look better, but it wouldn't get it to FP quality. (Sorry, I did the edit on a shared computer and it got wiped before I had chance to upload it; I could redo it if you really want to see it, but given no response above, I'll assume it's a 'no' anyway.) --jjron (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the effort. Thank you for trying! –Visionholder (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly would make a good candidate at Valued pictures if that does get off the ground. --jjron (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconder:

