Oppose Unappealing bokeh, prominent dust spot (or is it a fly? Doesn't matter, looks like a dust spot...), and what appears to be some strange pixelisation in the sky (unless my laptop screen is to blame - I'm not at my calibrated monitor now.) Anyway, this is not up to Fir's usual standards, IMO. --Janke | Talk14:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that its a fly. With that sort of DOF, a dust spot would be quite a large blob, not a little dot. I also do don't see any pixelation in the sky, but maybe I've missed it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)15:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I can see what may be a dust spot just above the goat's tail in the sky. Its quite subtle though. I'm assuming you meant the one just to the lower-left of the goat's head. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good pick up on the tail dust spot - not sure if it's worth uploading an edit just for that tho as it's pretty negligble IMO (but I can if people want it). As for the fly dust spot I believe this is in fact a pellet of goat poo (not sure how he picked it up - probably didn't choose his bed all too carefully :)). Again if it's an issue it would be a snap to correct it --Fir000223:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha actually the spot that I was refering to is in the sky to the lower-left side of the goat's head, but yes, thats probably poo on his coat. Charming. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)00:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd say this is exactly Fir0002's standard actually. Same resolution, same sharpness and well preserved highlights. Subject well positioned and isolated against a relatively neutral background. The goat's head/body does blend into the clouds slightly, but this is less obvious when viewed full sized. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)15:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any blown highlights (well, virtually - certainly none of the goat itself). Check the histogram. Eye drop the highlights. The brightest part of the goat that I can find has values of R=240, G=230, B=228 which is nowhere near blown - just bright, which is to be expected of a white coat on a sunny day. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff eye dropper values, the head and back of the goat oar overly bright... poor exposure. Not up to Fir's usually quality at all. I dare say another example of when Fir should have reached for a polariser. Capital photographer (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, call a spade a spade then. You might consider it overexposed (debatable, thats subjective) but it doesn't have blown highlights. Blown means at least one of the RGB values, if not all of them, are 255. Since they are not, you can upload an underexposed edit, rather than outright oppose it. I've had a look and I think it looks a bit worse underexposed though. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)17:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah personally I really hate it when people upload photos where white objects are grey in order to avoid knee jerk BLOWN HIGHLIGHTS!! votes. This is a white goat for crying out loud! Don't limit your tonal range to <230,230,230! --Fir000223:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, agreed. Snow looks white too, not grey (but is tough to control exposure with). As far as I'm concerned the exposure is spot on, but you'll never please everyone! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)00:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is white, and whether or not it is formally blown or not, there is an appreciable loss of detail and tone in those areas where brightness is too high. I tried to edit but it would seem to be beyond what post-processing can correct. Hence the number one rule of photography, get it right in the camera. Capital photographer (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No blown whitesSorry, but you're wrong - there is no loss in the white areas. I suggest you check histograms and make simple tests before suggesting blown whites. See test image, levels adjusted to show there's detail in the whitest whites... (I won't change my oppose, though - I don't like the splotchy bokeh...) --Janke | Talk05:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh quit harping on about histograms. It is too bright in those areas. Your test image is heavily edited, it has turned white to brown. In the original however, it is too bright. It is a good picture otherwise. Capital photographer (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Your test image is heavily edited, it has turned white to brown" - that was the whole point! Reduce the brightness/exposure, increase contrast, and see if the result shows any detail in the hair. Because the result does show full detail, there cannot possibly be any "blown highlights". I'm a newbie photographer and even I get that. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-30 13:35Z
The histogram was only shown to prove that you were completely and utterly wrong in your statements. Of course it was heavily edited in that it was underexposed and perhaps contrast enhanced but Janke could not have added texture that wasn't there in the first place, could he? Where is the lost detail? It all looks there to me. For a serious photographer, you seem to get the fundamentals wrong quite a lot. Now, either its a conspiracy and we're all out to get you, or perhaps you just need to take a step back for a second and wonder if the majority might be right in this case. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)06:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are a member of the "photographic masters guild" aka "persons who need to make a club to make up for insecurities", so there is a bit of a mutual support pact going on. I would point out though that real photographers don't need to flaunt fancy titles or memberships. Anyway, Ken Duncan had a similar shot of a goat (may have being a sheep?) on the side of a green grassy hill with the sea in the background. Very bright conditions yet not overly bright. Crisp white but without glare. It's no longer online as it was a limited edition print. Capital photographer (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, there isn't a mututal support pact going on. It seems you're believing that it is a conspiracy and we are out to get you. I happen to agree with Fir0002 some of the time, but I have historically vehemontly disagreed with him a lot too. I didn't make up the guild and didn't have any input into it at all, but it doesn't imply we're insecure and it was a bit immature to bring that into the conversation. I think we have a professional respect for each other and that is the extent of it. Regardless, that has nothing to do with this discussion. I fail to understand why you brought up Ken Duncan's photo though. The qualities of it that you describe apply to Fir0002's goat too, if you ask me, and since it is no longer online, it is of limited importance since we cannot directly compare, so the impact of your mentioning it seems limited to name dropping and implying that his photo is better exposed without any way of demonstrating it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)09:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Ken Duncan shot proves that a shot like this, in similar conditions and with similar composition can be done without the glare exhibited on the goats fleece in this photo. If it were something that could not be avoided, I would accept it. I do believe that had greater care being taken,exposure of the goat could have been better. And no, I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theory, but let's face it, you've been very harsh about fairly tiny errors in other shots, yet a blaring issues with this one is ignored. Capital photographer (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you completely missed my point - the Ken Duncan shot proves nothing because we cannot see it (not publicly available to view). That was why I asked why you bothered mentioning something completely intangiable to either of us. , Even if we could compare it, it would be still be a subjective issue, unlike the issue of blown highlights, which either are or they aren't. I think you're also misusing the word 'glare' as the goat's coat does not have glare. If you're experiencing glare from the brighter parts of the image then perhaps you should adjust your monitor. As for the hypocrisy you accuse me of, I call faults as I see them. I don't see the faults you see in this image, and neither does anyone else who has commented, it seems. Again, are we all wrong? Or could it be you? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent detail, despite having those phantom blown highlights ;) — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-30 13:30Z
Support Original (Strong Oppose Edit 1) Goats defecate and sometimes it ends up on them, it adds realism too the photograph and better context to the article. If we accept censorship of poo, then what will be next? Should Fir0002 go over and brush and bleach its coat? floss its teeth? spray the grass with paint to make it greener and the flowers more yellow? If we look for a cosmetic/"picture perfect" image of an animal then it becomes deceptive and unacceptable for encyclopedic content. It is the quality of the picture not it's subject that is of importance here. Unless there's some evidence that goats are particularly clean animals that constantly groom themselves free of feces, then the edit is inappropriate. Use the original. Dwayne Reed (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As ridiculous as that sounds, I agree. The fixing of the fly and dust spot were appropriate, but goats are somewhat dirty animals. smooth0707 (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support an edit without dust spot, leave shit and fly or Support original I live near goats, I tried to find one without flies around it the other day, but got tired of eating dust and smelling poo. It's an attractive composition. --Blechnic (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
