Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/brown bear running

Brown Bear Running

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2010 at 06:02:56 (UTC)

Reason: The criteria seems to be met and EV is certainly there.
Articles in which this image appears: Eurasian Brown Bear List of mammals of Croatia
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Creator: Malene

Support as nominator --Iankap99 (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose as largely out of focus... Shame though, as it's an otherwise well captured shot... Gazhiley (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (also reluctantly) as per Gazhiley. It appears to be a depth of field issue; some parts are in decent focus (droplets, much of the front of the animal) but too much of the picture is too far out of focus (front legs, foreground). Still a nice shot, though. Matt Deres (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although *blur* is the outcome, the reason underlying it doesn’t appear to be depth of field and instead appears to be motion blur (1/320th of a second). The bear’s hindquarters appear to be shaking off water. Also, since the camera was panning to track the bear, no part of the grass (either behind the bear or in front of it) is sharp. I don’t see any of this as being a deal breaker (much like a photo of a Formula racing car); the bear’s head has been captured tack sharp. Greg L (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like it's got both issues: DOF (back of the bear is out of focus, but front is decently sharp), and motion blur (front paws blurry, as they were probably moving faster than the camera was panning). Jujutacular ^T · C 18:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the above two opposes, but I have feeling this has a good chance of pulling through, maybe because the image is so likable. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greg L gives all the reason why I support. A better camera would have helped this shot, but it's still good enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gut Monk (talk • contribs)
Support I really like the expression on the bear’s face; that’s one happy camper. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The focus/blur problems aren't too distracting in my opinion, and the shot by itself is quite impressive. XeroJavelin (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. This isn't the perfect shot, but it captures the motion and shows what the bear looks like very nicely. I have no problem with this being a featured picture. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I especially like the expression on the bear's face. Kind of reminds me of a dog. The Utahraptor ^Talk 15:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really close to the current standard we have for animal pictures (see the mammals page, for instance). The subject is mostly out of focus, and the composition isn't particularly good. From an EV standpoint, a head shot should be something like or and a side shot more like or . Those images, while mostly lousy, give a much clearer sense of what the bear actually looks like. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of these four, only one is a brown bear, but it has insufficient resolution to meet the minimum criteria for FPC. The others are for other types of bears. Is there a superior picture of a brown bear that at least meets the FPC minimums? Greg L (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't the point. Those are examples of what a good shot would look like. Yeah, they stink, but they were taken from better angles and have higher EV because they do a better job showing what a bear looks like. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just chiming in briefly here to say Makeemlighter's interpretation of the criteria is correct. There need not be a better image available to justify not promoting this one. Finding that an image falls short of the criteria is enough. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I strongly agree. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Along the same lines previously explored by Greg L, Jujutacular, J Milburn. You can't technically improve this shot much. I expect it won't stay in the taxobox forever for reasons pointed out by Makeemlighter, but it has a definite place in the article as an illustration of a *running* bear (we'd also feature a bird in flight and at rest, or any animal once resting and once feeding). And if any more comparison is needed, this bear FP is one I'm not so sure about. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Are you gonna start a delist discussion? J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm not sure the flaws are entirely forgivable, this isn't an extinct animal, so it's highly reproducible, we tend to have high quality standards for these types of photographs. Although I do appreciate the artistic side that the blur representing motion to emphasize that it was a moving dynamic animal and a faster shutter speed although freezing the motion would loose that detail. Similar how we prefer long exposures for water movement.. but also my technical side seems to think that the focus wasn't perfect, his face isn't entirely in focus, seems the focal point was a bit behind his head, the puff of fir on his shoulder looks to be about the focal point, so that is a fairly big technical flaw. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is back focussed, with the focus point being on the shoulder rather than the head. I also believe that it would not be that difficult to reproduce. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont mind the motion blur but the lack of focus on the head is a bummer --Muhammad(talk) 11:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak support It looks like an image taken in a wild, but it probably is not--Mbz1 (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]