Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gibraltar Barbary Macaque

Gibraltar Barbary Macaque

Reason: This is a fantastic photograph which clearly shows the details of a Barbary Macaque's face. I know someone is going to come in and complain about the subject being cut off, but the purpose of this photo is to depict the face, not the entire body. ♠ SG →Talk 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in: Gibraltar Barbary Macaques, Gibraltar, Barbary Macaque
Creator: User:Chris Buttigieg

Support as nominator — ♠ SG →Talk 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Top of head cut off, hurts enc. --Janke | Talk 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, this image is about the facial features of the Barbary Macaque. There are plenty of monkey pictures showing the whole body. ♠ SG →Talk 21:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Fantastic picture, but poorly framed. I can't support it when so much of the top of the head is cut off and there is so much space under his chin that is not. I'm not saying that his entire head needs to be shown, but it is cropped too close to his left eye. Cacophony 22:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Exquisite detail around the eyes makes up for the poor composition, IMHO. Very enc. and interesting. --TotoBaggins 04:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the photographer I feel that people should bear in mind the fact that the photograph’s most important facet is to portray the facial features, as opposed to the face or head for that matter. For instance, if you take a closer look at the eyes you can even see that they are exceedingly reminiscent of a human’s. Fair enough it’s not the best in composition, but you can hardly argue that a commonplace whole-head photograph would have been far too dull. Chris Buttigieg ^talk 09:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh. Reminiscent of a human's will almost surely become the next entry on Conservapedia's enumeration of ways in which Wikipedia untowardly prefers science to superstition. Joe 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Subject cut off. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to too-tight cropping/framing on top. I understand the purpose is to document the macaque's facial features, but the framing is distracting all the same and eliminates what most would consider to be part of the face -- the brow/forehead region over the left eye. -- Moondigger 13:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - honestly, how could you oppose this? It's like people weigh up intangible positives against tangible negatives like "entire subject is not in shot", and simply prioritise the tangibles. This image is great: it's incredibly sharp, it's detailed, it's attractive, and it's caught the subject with a nice expression. Like I was saying on another image: would you expect to find this sot of image in a print encyclopaedia? Yes: you might have one photo of the whole body, or even several animals together, and a close-up shot such as this, just on the face. I agree that in an ideal world the image would be cropped to include slightly more of the brows, but that's a minor complaint. Cherish what we do have. Stevage 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In this case I agree that if the aim of the image is to present the facial features, then this image does that, although it could still be improved with more direct lighting. Anyway, I can deal with a baby monkey crying but are you sure that isn't one of the Teletubbies?? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point there, although wouldn't you agree that someone must have had a serious problem with the Tellytubby designing? Chris Buttigieg ^talk 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think it makes it. --Cody.Pope 12:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as the crop is too tight really. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its very hard to get the lighting right to get a facial shot of those damn monkeys, I tried lots of times. --Gibnews 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Technical issues at full zoom with some of the single whiskers. Agree that crop is too tight and no argument of facial features is going to sway me. Facial features means I want at least the whole head. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Depicts the macaque's facial features in great detail as well as having the subject looking straight at the lense. Getting a Barbary Macaque to do this only happpens occasionaly and when it does its about three seconds before it attempts to snatch the camera! Congratulations on this great photograph. Gibmetal 77 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no criticisms - Adrian Pingstone 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This may make the teletubby cry, but I can't tell what the entire head is supposed to look like. ShadowHalo 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're a heartless monster! ♠ SG →Talk 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think reflects the animal well. I don't mind that the subject is cut off, as I think it achieves it's purpose well. Nic007 03:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo is a bit too close-up, but I don't think that detracs from either the encyclopedic value or the beauty of the picture. -- Kicking222 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Framing is good. The scalp is not part of the face. —Pengo 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the image a lot, actually. My only criticism: it seems a bit superfluous in the context of the Barbary Macaque article itself, which already has two macaque images. SingCal 06:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Gibraltar Barbary Macaque.jpg MER-C 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]