Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pithecopus rohdei

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pithecopus rohdei

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2021 at 02:16:28 (UTC)

Original – Pithecopus rohdei in Atlantic Forest, Igrapiúna, Brazil
Reason
Interesting photo, Commons picture of the year in 2017. I expanded the article some, hopefully it will get more attention.
Articles in which this image appears
Pithecopus rohdei, Wikimedia Commons
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Creator
Renato Augusto Martins
  • This was discussed on Commons, the photographer described what he did and it passed unanimously. Charles participated and said "fine work". The background is dark because it was shot at f/22 with a (remote) flash. About "maybe string holding the leg up": I uploaded a frame from this GIF, see top view here. This is a natural pose. The forward elbow has a slight bend which wouldn't show in a lateral view. Bammesk (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I remember the discussion, though I should not have said fine work. Reading a Google translate of the photographer's comment he admits that it was a complicated set up shot. It is not natural. The photographer's comments explain how it was staged Petar Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well i hope they did not "torture" that animal for a picture. That should be prohibited. I dont understand why f/22 was used, on f/14-16 would be more than enough. Despite that Support, unless some other show up (staged etc.). --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not know that, despite my support vote there, but i did not read further text. So put one there, and they will fight for place, as someone mentioned. What is bad it become POTY, and even more bad, we had two crippled birds (from London) as POTY too. Those birds were tortured and could not fly. I remove my support vote. --Petar Milošević (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I google-translated the photographers comments: Hello everyone, thank you very much for the messages and doubts. I will try to clarify all the points questioned. Yes, the animal is wild and free-living. The technique used for this type of image with a black background is very simple, however very laborious. As previously mentioned by the colleague, in the EXIF ​​of the photo it is possible to observe the f / 22 which would be quite high! with the foreground well lit and the background in shadow or dark, we managed to make the background very black. Allied to this, we can see in the image that there is practically no shadow in the amphibians, this is the most difficult part of the photograph! There is no information in the EXIF ​​about the light source, as I use an external flash, attached to a flash radio. That alone would be enough for a black background, but to have no shadow in the image I used 3 light beaters, making the light soft and pleasant! The position of amphibians is completely natural in their habitat. Above all the Clado Phyllomedusidae, presents species that walk slowly and jump little, in the photo in question, a male disputes the branch with another male, when passing over him, an amphibian lowers itself as a form of defense as the other crosses, everything this lasted for about 4 seconds, making the image even more challenging! I hope I have helped, I am always available for further clarification. Renato Augusto Martins So this looks and feels genuine to me, and I've seen videos of frogs taking slow steps just like seen here. The link to the "faked frogs" doesn't show natural postures. Just my 2 €-cents... --Janke | Talk 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per discussion above, and the likely suggestion that this has been staged. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply – So it's not photoshopped and strung (frogs weren't forced and tortured). Now the oppose rationale is "staged" and "not in the wild". Several things: 1- Using the word "staged" on a frog implies undue manipulation (drugs, strings, etc). In this photo the frogs are doing what's natural to them. The photographer says so and I think we all agree on that. 2- A remote flash-plus-reflector isn't complicated these days, it could be a bit more elaborate than this. It doesn't mean a complicated setup. 3- The photographer has a track record with frogs-and-flash on flickr in 2010 here, more recently on Commons here. I enlarged his Commons photos and checked the catchlight, he uses flash-plus-reflector on many [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] +more, and flash on almost all photos. I think it's likely his shots are at a research university, animal sanctuary, zoo, etc. (on a sidenote, we don't have a policy or a precedence to oppose solely on that) 4- Yes the photographer says it's "very laborious", and he also says it's "very simple" in the same sentence. As Janke says: these are my 2 €-cents. Bammesk (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
so you agree, staged! Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the 39 supports on Commons, which includes you, so I agree with your vote on Commons. Bammesk (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC) . . . . I agree the frogs are doing what's natural to them. I agree there was no undue manipulation (drugs, strings, etc). He said the frogs are wild and free-living, he didn't say he shot this in the wild. I think he had time, he knows what frogs do, he was hoping he get a good shot and he got it. I think he is legit, he doesn't do fake shots. I think you want to oppose, first fake background, now "staged" as a synonym for fake. By the way "not in the wild" and "staged" are not sufficient oppose rationales, we are an encyclopedia, not a wild life magazine. Example: [6] Bammesk (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The photo has considerable artistic merit. But this is not Commons. You believe an encyclopaedia should celebrate a photo which purports to be natural, but where the frog must have been placed on the branch by the photographer's assistant? I don't agree. I know quite a lot about frogs' behaviour. Do you? I was eventually happy last time as I had not read the English translation of the photographer's explanation of the lengthy set up. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You actually supported this twice on Commons, once before [7] and then after [8] reading the photographer's explanations. So you think this is a well-done shot: technically, humanely (since you know frogs), compositionally, etc. I don't know frogs but handling this type is easy [9]. They could have been placed on the branch. I am Ok with "well done" set up shots, we are an encyclopedia, and animals aren't an exception. I don't see undue manipulation in capturing this photo, so I am Ok with it. I see the frogs having a natural dispute. I don't see cruelty, given the unanimous supports on Commons including your support there. Bammesk (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flash isn't complicated, his camera and flash have wireless built-in [11] [12]. The frogs are ~1.8 inch [13], image width is ~4 inch, lens is 105mm, so camera is ~1.5 ft away. Looking at the catchlight I am pretty confident it's 3 surfaces, as opposed to 3 reflectors; something like 4.5x1.5 ft in area folded into 3 sections, not as small as I previously thought. According to the file description [14] this was shot at the Michelin Reserve in Brazil, which is a protected nature reserve and research area [15]. Bammesk (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Pithecopus_rohdei&oldid=1001819514"