Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Baby goats jan 2007.jpg

Baby Goats

Beautiful image of two baby goats about a week old. Despite their very different appearance but were born of the same pure white mother, and AFAIK, the same pure white father.

Appears in Domestic goat

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose lighting is very cold, right animal has poor contrast with background, white of the right animal's coat is a bit harsh (due to the lighting, more than a poor exposure) foreground grass a bit distracting. -Fcb981 04:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also don't like the way the white goat blends in with the grass. I'm thinking that a bright green grass background would be great to get both goats, but, this being fall in the southern hemisphere, I guess the goats will be older and not as cute by the time you could get a bright contrast. Maybe they live in a red barn that could be used as a contrasting background? I love they way they are both posed, looking at the camera, but the background just kills it. Also, to be encyclopedic, this should illustrate an article about coat genetics. Enuja 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wholeheartedly wish it was a green background too - it hasn't rained well in months! No red barns, this is Australian not Kansas! However I take issue with saying it has to appear in an article on coat genetics to be enc, it's an interesting side fact but by no means detracts from the illustration of a kid --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support It's not bad, and it's encyclopedic, but I think the goat on the top of the article page is of higher quality.-DMCer 06:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but needs to be cropped on the right. ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree, the composition is great the way it is. The goats heads capture the attention, and they are balanced within the frame. --Dschwen 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The bulk of the bodies is what needs to be balanced, also there is a stretch of darker grass on the right border. In any case, I added an edit that's both cropped and increases the contrast between white goat and the background. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oppose Edit. For the compositon the elements that attract attention are important. Weak support original because of bg contrast problems. --Dschwen 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: another thing is bugging me about the edit. I find it rather presumptuous to state colors enhanced in the caption. Who is to say that it really is an enhancement? If anybody than it should be an eyewitness, i.e. Fir. --Dschwen 07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Color enhancement is the summary term for increasing saturation, contrast, luminosity, etc., in order to create a better separation of objects from the background. This has nothing to do with the fidelity to the original, this common imaging lingo. ~ trialsanderrors 06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- encyclopedic and good --Penubag 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]
Weak support - Lovely picture. It is a shame the background is not different to make a better contrast with the white goat. Alvesgaspar 09:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely tilted (or do goats stand like that?) - Adrian Pingstone 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They seem to be on sloped ground. There is something like a fence in the background, and the lines between the boards seem to be vertical, although it's hard to make out since it's quite blurry. But it's noticeable that their heads tilt the other way. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the pic is probably not tilted. Nevertheless the apparent tilt spoils it for me - Adrian Pingstone 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Picture was taken on a hill. --Fir0002 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tilt barely distracts me from the subject, which is photographed wonderfully. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like it. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Background distracts. --Janke | Talk 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was a fine shot without the crop, just a bit over-exposed. Some selective tonal correction - or shooting with a polarizer, perhaps - would help the white kid stand out from the bg, but equally a -0.5 gamma shift would do the job. I'd support a darker version & will reserve my vote pending that. I'm not sure the 'slant' is a real, FP-obstructing problem, FWIW. mikaul^talk 14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original -- I nominated it a bit late though. :-D --Arad 14:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, poor background. -- Avenue 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only. Edit washes out the blacks a bit. I don't have a problem with the background. Good quality image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original. Until the day comes when Fir can get a dozen healthy goats (two of each sex aged exactly 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 fortnight, 1 month, and 1 year), lined up with equal distance between each other, standing a freshly mowed field of green grass, all facing the camera and smiling... this picture will do just fine. Chicago god 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That of course being two-dozen goats, ;) Pstuart84 Talk 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The goats are great, but the background almost eats them up. bobanny 02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned over at the commons, why would the animals have a contrasting coloration to their background? It is in their best interests to blend in with their surroundings! Particularly at this early stage when they are very vulnerable, as their mothers often leave them by themselves for a period of time and graze. --Fir0002 07:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point generally, but it's not a strong enough consideration in this case for me. What I see here is a portrait of the animals themselves, not camouflage. They're engaging with the photographer and us by extension, standing in what could be a studio pose contrived to illustrate what two wobbly kids with different markings look like. (Your praying mantis was probably trying to blend in with his surroundings when he was nabbed, but nonetheless turns out to be quite photogenic in the studio). If this was illustrating camouflage, that characteristic should make a more immediate impact on the viewer (like the "Lace Monitor" FPC above and some other FPs I've seen). The interesting juxtaposition here is between the 2 animals, not the animals and their environment, and that's what the background takes away from. I also think the one on the right's coat is too whited-out, making the photo look a little flat. bobanny 09:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that they are not in a studio pose - they are not at all familiar with humans at that age and won't allow people to get near them. Hence the use of the 200mm lens. As to the white of the baby - that's what it looks like! It's a fluffy bundle of pure white! --Fir0002 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to imply that it was a studio pose, just that if a photographer were to (somehow) get them to pose, this would be a good one (especially with the up and down ears). bobanny 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, if Featured Pictures won't take them, I'm sure that Cute Overload will. :) --TotoBaggins 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – background and white goat have too little contrast. It's a good photo, but not FP-worthy --jacobolus (t) 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If the colour variation is supposed to be the theme of this image, "as far as I know" is not very good information as to the identity of the father. Goats are not at all monogamous. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK it was a pure white father as we only have white billies. Aside from that I can't see any validity in your vote as the image is not meant to illustrate colour variation - it's not even in an article on that! --Fir0002 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be so defensive, but okay, if it's not about colour variation, why does it have two differently coloured kids in it? This is an encyclopaedia, I wouldn't want children thinking goats pop out in uneven pairs because that's what you chose to take a picture of. This is not your private photography contest, Fir. If you want credit for taking beautiful pics, for heaven's sake take it to Commons! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find comments like that immensely irritating and not very productive. It seems because I have a number of FP's people think they can use the "it's not your private photo show etc etc etc" to oppose an image. Where exactly is it stipulated that "Thou shalt not address comments on thy photos"? You accuse me of being defensive, but seems to me you're clutch on straws to hang on to your oppose vote. Why shouldn't they be different colored? Do you think all goats are white? Because it's an encyclopaedia is all the more reason to have variation, giving a better representation of the species. Please confine yourself to judging a photo based on the guidelines here!! --Fir0002 06:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let him who cast the first stone - oh, no, the original is different... Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm sorry... not really sure what you mean by that! --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, we also don't want children thinking that all goats are the same color. And I think it is perfectly appropriate for the photographer to try to address the opposers' concerns. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if he manages to do so without being dismissive. It's just about possible that I made the comments for a reason, but if you don't want to know, fine! Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are unwilling to provide appropriate reasons to oppose this image then I suggest you reconsider or strike out your vote... --Fir0002 07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tilted anyway, so what's the point in arguing? Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't possibly determine tilt without any valid reference points. The background cannot be used because it appears to be tilted through perspective and/or the slight incline of a hill. In any case, such an image does not rely on such precise horizontal accuracy. I suppose the point of arguing was to produce a valid reason for opposing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dark lines of the fence are quite clearly visible, and they're vertical. The rest is hogwash. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know that gravity is measured in fence units. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still wouldn't put too much faith on the fence posts as absolute vertical since from my experience they can start to lean over time, they're clearly the most reliable source in this image. There is no horizon, perspective can greatly affect what would otherwise horizontal lines, and animals don't always stand straight, particularly on a hill. I would say the fence posts and the fact that both animals have their heads vertical in the photo suggests it is near enough untilted. This is not a defense of Fir0002's ego, this is just my opinion on the matter. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff, even if animals on a hill won't always stand straight, then in this case they are certainly leaning the wrong way. Please guys, let the laws of physics and common sense prevail here! Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that they are leaning the correct way. From the perspective, it appears that the hill gets higher towards the right side of the frame and the goats are leaning towards that hill. This is normal. Would you expect them to lean away from the hill? I agree, let common sense prevail. Its just that I think common sense is on my side in this example. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not normal. It requires that both goats have two short legs on the hill side. How likely is that? Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...you can't lean away from a hill. Well, you can for a second, but then you roll down it. The goats probably have their knees bent a little on the higher side. That's how I would stand on a hill. 67.86.86.217 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support If Terrence Malick made movies about goats, they'd probably look like this. --Bagginz 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The white goat's back is a bit overexposed, and it's tail is slightly blurry, but a lovely image overall. On my desktop already. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fcb981 above. The constrast between the white goat and the background is a problem. David D. (Talk) 16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral - cold lighting, low background contrast. Debivort 05:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Image:Baby goats jan 2007.jpg --The Sunshine Man 10:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]