Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Waterberg Nashorn2.jpg

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Two white rhinos

Original - Two white rhinos eat dry grass. These animals are completely wild. They live close to, but outside Waterberg National Park, Namibia.
Reason
I think the image is illustrative because you see a rhino from the front and from the side in a single image. It's valuable because there are not too many wild living rhino pictures. It's one of the highest resolution rhino pictures we have.
Articles in which this image appears
White Rhinoceros, Rhinoceros
Creator
Ikiwaner
  • Support as nominator --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose In my opinion (and I may be wrong about the technical definitions here) there seems to be a lot of noise on the rhinos themselves, especially the furthest away... It looks like it has a fur coat in fact... The horn of the closest seems very blurred too... Shame though as its a very rare photograph I would imagine... Gazhiley (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment is somewhat unreasonable. The picture has >8MP (more than 4x as many pixels as Noodle snacks butterfly and almost 5x more than Muhammads Culex sp, both of which just got promoted). Judging images at 100% without any regard for resolution makes no sense. You are basically punishing the uploader for not uploading a degraded downsampled version that would fool amateurs into thinking that the image is tack shap. Lame! --Dschwen 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not unreasonable at all... I have no idea about technical reasons/fixes... They just look like they have fur coats and horns due to the fuzziness... End of... Gazhiley (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Waterberg Nashorn1.jpg has not so much noise. – Wladyslaw (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Image page needs English description for en:wiki. The image itself is very nice, but re quality, I'm at a bit of a loss too - with the camera and settings you wouldn't expect much noise, but there does appear to be quite a lot in the background. Perhaps the lens used? --jjron (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]