Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mexican Wolf 2

Mexican Wolf 2

A nice high resolution action shot.

Nominate and support. - Noclip 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a touch blurry, but I think it's sufficient quality. (a good quality FWS shot, there's something you don't see every day!) --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, the edit drastically changed the coloration around the mouth. There's definitely something off there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support DOF could be better but nevertheless it's definately a striking photo --⁪froth^{T C} 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edited version, Weak support original (see image history), ~~would fully support a better edit to address grain without throwing off the colour balance. If I get around to it I'll do it myself this evening.~~ Support either of my edits. --YFB ¿ 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Throw it off? Original had an ugly yellow tint. Noclip 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. The shadows in your version have a slight blue tint. In direct comparison the original looks more natural. Might be (please don't take this the wrong way) a whitebalance (color temperature) issue with your monitor. since I have my new GFX card, the Is my monitor calibrated correctly gamma correction fields match up perfectly... :-)--Dschwen 23:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well colour balance is semi-subjective and differs from person to person: some (like me) prefers things with a slight yellow tint while other like it purple. But I do agree the older version look more natural. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 00:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All Not sharp, probably because of low shutter speed? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added two edits, both with reduced noise and increased contrast; I've also adjusted the levels on the second so that it looks natural on my (properly calibrated) monitor. I'm not sure which people will prefer - the slightly redder tone of edit 1 is probably quite representative of the ambient light where the photo was taken. Sharpness isn't perfect but it's pretty good for an action shot and certainly good enough for FP at this resolution (IMO). --YFB ¿ 02:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose original and edit 2, oppose edit 1. It's just a bit too blurry for me. --Tewy 03:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 or edit 2 per YFB. Soft at 100% but also much higher res than many other animal FPs. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 only. Keeps it more bluish, which I like, but corrects shadows around jaw --⁪froth^{T C} 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Original, Weak Oppose Edits 1 and 2. I love the shot, but it's too blurry to suport. NauticaShad e s 15:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1, weak support edit 2, oppose original The edits seem to have made a good improvement, I think the original was too red, edit 2 is probably too far the other way. Overall it's a nice picture of an animal in a natural environment, therefore v. encyclopedic. Terri G 11:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2nd edit, Support 1st edit, Weak Support original I don't like how the contrast in the 2nd edit is compared to the wolf itself.--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Mexican_Wolf_2_yfb-edit_1.jpg --Fir0002 06:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]