Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alpine Ibex

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alpine Ibex

[edit]
Original - A female Alpine Ibex, in Slovenia. A vulnerable species, which tends to be found on steep, rough terrain at elevations of 2,000–4,600 m (6,500–15,000 feet).
Reason
Encyclopedic value, composition, natural habitat, good technicals.
Articles this image appears in
Alpine Ibex, Slovenia
Creator
Chmehl
  • Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I would expect FP-level photo to be more like this - a more aesthetic angle and a bit more detail. For the record though, I had the same trouble capturing sheep, as they tended to keep turning their bodies away from me as an instinctual safety mechanism, so I understand this this wild animal would be difficult to photograph. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do share Diliff's concerns about it, specificly for me it's missing it's legs in the high grass. Also this is a very young specimen I would prefer a FP showing the majesty of a alpha male like this for example. There is a very stark difference in it's horns from the young and aged adult. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a reason why an article couldn't have both a female and a male FP. More importantly, and I know this could become a broader debate, for me a photo of a wild animal in its natural ecosystem tends to have higher EV than one in the zoo, even if at the cost of some details of its fur or bottom part of its feet. Guess is just my way of seeing the world. Elekhh (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't hold that against it, personally. Shots with this sort of context are worth many times the value of zoo shots and IMO a good deal of leeway should be allowed for obstructions like grass, branches, etc. It's a great shame that this one has been butchered (digitally, I mean..) with aggressive sharpening and "unclean" conversion to jpeg, as it used up all its brownie points mitigating that. mikaultalk 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The missing foot; otherwise good. --JN466 22:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a grazing animal. Its natural behaviour is standing in grass and eating it. This is not a studio shot. In the past it has been practice to accept that animals in the wild often have small parts of their bodies obscured by their natural environments, and for grazing animals to have received no objections based on grass around their hooves. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to take a look at for comparison. It avoids most of the flaws of the nominated image. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do hear what you're saying. Such an image is possible. We could hold out and oppose this on the assumption that one day we will have it. The composition of that image isn't great, and the direct sunlight on rock and shadow makes for a mix of harsh over and under-exposure. The overexposed rock is in turn distracting from the subject of the image. That's a lot to sacrifice just for some hooves, which in this case aren't all that visible anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs) 01:29, 21 November 2009
    • It's not the grass; it is that the hindfeet would be out of shot even if the animal were standing on rock. It's a (minor) compositional issue rather than the animal being obscured. --JN466 01:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's pretty much irrelevant, isn't it? Had the feet been visible, the composition would have been adjusted, but, as they are not visible there's no real reason to complain in my opinion. Cowtowner (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't get a useful sense from the picture of how long the animal's hindlegs are. This would be different if you could see the part of the meadow its hindlegs were standing on. --JN466 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Given that this is how the animal would most often be seen, I see no reason to oppose it for the reasons given above. They are products of the environment, in a way we should be thankful that they remain undisturbed. Cowtowner (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Composition and artefacts. Maedin\talk 17:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Alpine_Ibex&oldid=1148689319"