Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Duck at UConn

Duck at UConn

Many featured pictures of this, I know, but I feel like this particular angle shows the mallard's face in a different fashion from the others. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominate and support I should probably do this, as noted by Arad. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I love the photo but i think it lacks something. Maybe it's those little blown highlights or the focus? I'm not sure but still it's a good photo. By the way aren't you going to support your own nomination? (And i hope your not going to strike my weak. :-D) Arad 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurred feet, as much shadow as duck. HighInBC 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The feet are not blurred in the original, but I couldn't find an effective way to balance the background blur (so you didn't focus on the grass) with the feet (so there weren't these blocks of focus surrounded by out of focus grass). If I gave you the original, think you could give me a better idea? Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Sorry, the large shadow really ruins it for me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Head isn't in focus (and that's what is being portrayed), poor angle, DOF, blown highlights. --Tewy 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all above, but mostly the poor DOF. This shot should not have required an unusual aperture setting, since the duck is not in motion and it's not low light. No reason for the feet to be out of focus. This in spite of it being a really cool duck (it's at UConn=defacto cool). --Bridgecross 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)--160.79.219.133 13:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too much of the duck is in shadow.
  chat} 23:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Those totally blurred legs rule it out for me - Adrian Pingstone 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's all been said. NauticaShades^(talk) 16:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]