Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Burchell's zebra

Burchell's zebra

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2014 at 09:00:54 (UTC)

Reason: Good quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears: Burchell's zebra
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Yathin S Krishnappa

Support as nominator --Bellus Delphina ^talk 09:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the background seems to have an unnatural blur. – Editør (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- F/4 at 500mm? The bokeh seems to be in line with that. The nomination below (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/860808-Saffronfarm-05-IMG 7845-2.jpg) has a similar effect, owing to the focusing. My own photographs (File:Unidentified Insect, Sari Temple, 2014-04-10 05.jpg for instance) sometimes get such an effect as well, when the f number is rather low. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — For some reason the zebra looks like a model or plastic toy to me. I'm not saying it is — just that it seems to have that appearance. Sca (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a low-grade noise over the image; I think that it's making the image look plastic by smearing the features. Weak oppose. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adam please see the explanation by Yathin, I hope he has clarified things properly. Do you still think, the noise is a problem ? It can be reduced but din't feel to do so Bellus Delphina ^talk 10:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ISO 100 on the Mark IV shouldn't produce that kind of noise. If the exif data is correct, then post-processing definitely introduced undesirable graininess (too much sharpening?). As an aside, the zebra itself isn't quite as sharp as I would have liked. It's subtle, so I can't tell if focus is ever so slightly off the mark or there's a bit of motion blur (1/160s exosure at 500 mm is risky). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Possible to crop little bit on left and make it full square? Godhulii 1985 (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Shudder... no. Definitely not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Adam. He seems to have fingered what was making me uneasy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems taken in low light in the evening. Not bad in the available situation. Pinged Yathin for further opinion. Jee 07:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: as far as I can remember I did play with levels, contrast and temperature. This was photographed hand-held in the last light of the day, with a big storm in the background and quite a bit of dust in the area. So it is rather soft, which is what makes the picture more interesting in my (biased) opinion. ;-) I can upload the original without any post processing when I get back into civilization next week as I'm still in the field in Africa. ~y (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for sharing your experience. Keep shooting. Support BTW. J e e 15:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --This guy deserves a !vote. But the rest issues are not of much concern (IMHO)..The herald 12:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (having stumbled here from my FPC discussion page). High quality, stunning and beautiful. Also, SCIENCE !!! — Cirt (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Equus quagga burchellii - Etosha, 2014.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]