Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fiji Banded Iguana

Fiji Banded Iguana

From Fiji Banded Iguana. It really pops, it's eye is looking directly at the camera, and it has great color. If there is support I'll convince Rklawton to upload a larger version.

Thank you for your nomination. I've gone ahead and uploaded a higher-res version as per your recommendation. God help those with modem connections. Rklawton 08:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those with slow connections need not view the giant pic! - Adrian Pingstone 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. - Ravedave 04:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support IF a higher res version is uploaded. Some people will probably whine about not being able to see the whole subject, but they can get over themselves. The picture is illustrating that portion of the lizard, and it looks good. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Cyde Weys below it's already 3504x2336. How much larger do you want to? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still Oppose ~~partly because it's only 640 px wide. If I've understood the consensus correctly, 1000 px is now considered minimum for FP.~~ , it's extremely fuzzy in large size - was it simply re-sized from a lo-res image??? Loss of tail is not a concern here, but the head appears to be partially in shadow, thus giving the impression of a dark snout. --Janke | Talk 07:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This vote should be revisited because the image dimensions are now 3504x2336. --Cyde Weys 09:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shot this subject with a Canon EOS 20D, an 8.2-megapixel semi-professional digital single-lens reflex camera, using its highest resolution JPEG setting under low-light conditions (see metadata for details). The current image is the original. I have since switched to shooting on the maximum, zero-loss (RAW) setting, but that's not a format supported here. I'll probably re-shoot this subject. Rklawton 21:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you shoot RAW, it doesn't mean you can't convert it to JPG. That is the point, in fact. It just looks extremely out of focus in this image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1000 px is not minimum. The wording is "Be of a sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions". I take this as high enough resolution to allow good detail on important parts of the subject. I find the electron microscope image below of good size, as no more detail can be added. However, when it comes to animals, the bigger the better (generally). --liquidGhoul 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Out of focus on the head, and bad lighting around the head. --liquidGhoul 11:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, part of the animal is cropped on the side. If the remaining part is indeed out of focus that's a bad thing, but really, I prefer to have as much of the animal in frame of the picture to begin with. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - out of focus - Adrian Pingstone 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Focus and exposure issues. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)][reply]
Oppose Very blurry, terrible noise. chowells 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blurry and out of focus. - Eagle^a^mⁿ 07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for sure. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The image is blurry, but the resolution and color is good. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]