Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eurasian eagle-owl

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2014 at 11:20:41 (UTC)

Support as nominator – Jim Carter 11:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a FP on Wikimedia Commons. Hafspajen (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)^{Creepy eyes.}[reply]
Oppose Nice framing, scary eyes, but too much of the owl is out of focus for my liking sorry. gazhiley 12:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So? FP and Commons are two very different places... gazhiley 13:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you mean "WP and Commons are two very..."? Anyway, @Hafspajen: some people only come to oppose every nomination. They might even question the quality of the best image in the World. FP process is somewhat similar to RfA. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 18:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

No I mean it exactly as I've written it... Commons and FP (Featured Pictures, ie where we are right now - not sure what you mean by WP) are two different places, and a support on one doesn't mean it will/should automatically get a support on the other... They have different criteria and different intentions... And I trust I'm misreading what you are saying about people coming here just to oppose every picture, as the intonation is pointing in my direction... You only need to check my edit history to see I support way more than I oppose, and have done so for many years of voting in this section... Please feel free to message me on my talk page if you have any specific accusations to point in my direction....... gazhiley 23:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Gazhiley has been active on FPC here for many years and I respect his voting history, even if in this instance I disagree. Seemed like a bad faith assumption from Jim. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. But I'm not pointing towards you, gazhiley. I'm sorry if you felt bad. In the last few months seen some particular new editors and IPs have been opposing nominations. I mistakenly thought you are new (~1500 edits) and you are one of those new editors who only come to oppose but later I found you have been here for more than 4 years. So, yes, I'm sorry. Btw FP is also refered as Featured Pictures at Commons. So, I thought you might have meant "WP's FP and Common's FP are two different...". WP = Wikipedia. Again. I'm sorry. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Jim - I have been away for the last couple of years, and do virtually nothing else on Wikipedia than this, so I can understand why my edit count might look low. And thanks Dillif for your comment - even if I disagree with you about this picture! ;-) gazhiley 10:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Support - DOF is fine for identification purposes, though I agree that a bit smaller F number could have been useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, DOF is narrow and I can't see any obvious reason not to have used a smaller aperture in this case, but I agree with Crisco, I think there's enough that the identifying features are sharp. I'm more bothered by the angle. It's understandable why, but I don't like the feeling that we're looking up at the owl, portraits, both animal and human, tend to look better when taken at eye level. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^{I generally look up to my owl, he sits on a fir tree. Hafspajen (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

Support — Cool capture — besides, I'm feeling quite owly (2) today myself. Sca (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good! --Ebertakis (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi! Thank you for the nomination. I'll try to explain the issues concerning point of view and depth of field. I used f4.5 to have a more blurred background and to enhance a sense of volume in the owl itself. A very blurred background was necessary to isolate the owl so it looked more like an encyclopaedic portrait, the bush behind is not so far. Choosing of the point of view followed the same reasons: if I had been standing or at owl's level, too much distracting ground would be seen. Being slightly below his eyes allowed me to see some sky and to give even more protagonism to the owl. --Kadellar (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]