Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Trichosurus vulpecula 1.jpg

Common Brushtail Possum

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2010 at 14:00:42 (UTC)

Reason: The direct flash isn't perfect, and using off camera flash might have been a bit better (eg File:Trichosurus vulpecula brown form.jpg), but flash is needed for photography of nocturnal mammals, and the very high EV outweighs the hard and direct light source in this case imo. I intend to try and get some sugar glider and qoull photos in the future. Brushtail possums apparently come in four different colours.
Articles in which this image appears

Common Brushtail Possum

FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the detail below the branch? I can't quite work out if it's a tail, or something behind the tree? It looks aodd, and seems to fade near the top making me think it isn't a tail... Also just noticed the tree seems to have a piercing - level with the baby Possum's eyes... Looks odd not necc an issue... Gazhiley (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a tail. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then regretably I'll ~~Oppose~~ as I really don't like that part of it... It looks like a far away galaxy more than a tail... And the crop around it showing the stars behind just emphasises that it's a manipulated picture, and I am not keen on obvious manipulation... At a glance it looks like a huge out of proportion tail as well, just lighter at the edges of the tail... Sorry, as it's otherwise a great picture, if maybe a tiny bit bright around the stomach... Gazhiley (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The area "showing the stars behind" that you mention is the flash-reflecting grey flecks amongst the dark hairs of the brushy part of the possums tail. Melburnian (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you saying a Possum's tail is thicker than the branch it is sitting on? and that it has a almost scaley centre part with a pointy end that almost looks at a glance like an elephant trunk? Gazhiley (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        This image seems to indicate the tail as much thinner, more like the central part of the "star-like" bit hanging down, rather than the whole thing...Gazhiley (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There's quite a bit of variation of these across Australia. The one pictured has a "brushier" tail more like this one. Melburnian (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough.... I'll change my vote to Support then as I am happy that it's all tail and not manipulation of the photograph... Thanks for finding that Melburnian Gazhiley (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Heh, just stumbling across this discussion. Being familiar with these animals I hadn't even considered that the tail was anything but normal. Just speaking without looking at any refs, but if I remember correctly the 'scaly centre part' lacks hair in order to provide the prehensile tail with better grip. I have no doubt that the brush-tail as depicted is entirely natural. --jjron (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do you think this image would benefit from a bit of a touch up, such as contrast etc? -- Jack?! 03:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I adjusted levels to taste, so I suspect not, but you are welcome to have a go. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I appreciate that it is difficult to get these being nocturnal, but the flash really is quite harsh. These things are pretty common, so I would oppose except that the presence of the cute little joey is not so common and is well captured, so that just tips me towards support. --jjron (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I assume that a relatively harsh flash is going to be more or less inevitable in these kinds of situations. I think this is well composed, too. Cowtowner (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As you mentioned above there is colour variation within this species across its range. It would enhance EV to add the location to the image description page, as you have done for the distinctly darker File:Trichosurus vulpecula brown form.jpg. Melburnian (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but I thought the colour variation wasn't generally geographically dependant. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. The ones where I am invariably look like this picture, we don't have the darker ones seen in Tasmania. It's interesting how your two photos demonstrate the degree of variation in one particular location. Support. Melburnian (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. According to this there are four main colour variations. I've seen a gold one before, but I don't recall seeing a black one (never been looking in wet forest areas, where that page suggests to look). Noodle snacks (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Muhammad(talk) 04:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kind of creepy, their almost dead-looking eyes staring straight into the camera, and the strength of the flash in the preview looks like something from "The Blair Witch Project," not that it's Noodle Snacks's fault. I wish the mama would've been looking to the right, that would've been cuter to just have the pup (if that's the right word) looking at the camera. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joey (as I said in my vote) in common terminology. --jjron (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I almost forgot that it's a marsupial. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Jjron, the flash is harsh but the joey adds EV. --Elekhh (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Trichosurus vulpecula 1.jpg --J Milburn (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]