Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Heterochromia Cat

Reason: Heterochromia of the irides is a very beautiful natural occurrence. In this cat, it is particularly striking since it is complete heterochromia. In this particular photo, use of a small depth of field to create bokeh is very visually pleasing.
Articles this image appears in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterochromia
Creator: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jorgebarrios

Support as nominator --QueenStupid (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, technical problems: blown highlights, grainy. --Janke | Talk 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cat's face completely blown, noisy. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low technical quality. BTW, you can't "create" bokeh; bokeh is a quality, not an aspect of a picture. You can create a shallow DOF, though. Thegreenj 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean that one can't create a quality? Please use in a sentence. de Bivort 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in bokeh isn't a physical thing. Bokeh is quality (definition 3, not definition 1) as in good or bad, not more or less. Lenses have good bokeh or bad bokeh depending on how pleasing the blur is (it's subjective). How much blur depends on DOF and perspective, not bokeh. Thegreenj 03:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreenj is right, but he's arguing semantics. It would have been more correct to say something like "In this particular photo, use of a wide aperture has created a scene with a small depth of field which is visually pleasing and has nice bokeh" or something. The wide aperture hasn't "created" the bokeh, it has just allowed the bokeh that the lens innately produces to be seen. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys - so a proper sentence would be "That lens has nice bokeh," meaning it generates photos with pleasing differential focus? de Bivort 20:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bokeh isn't typically something the user can control, it depends on the optics of the lens, specifically, the shape and quantity of the aperture blades. The size of the aperture can sometimes be used to further refine the bokeh, but it's the lens more than anything. Anyway, blown highlights and the eyes look very fake. I've seen odd eye cats and they look like regular eyes, not overly bright and saturated. I think some photoshopping involved. Capital photographer (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke, low technical quality. —αἰτίας •discussion• 11:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low technical quality - per Janke. —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 22:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons set forth by Janke smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cat's fur is overblown. ¢rassic! (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fur is blown. Elephantissimo (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be a good Valued image candidate on Commons within the scope Heterochromia. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 03:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]