Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Green iguana (06643p).jpg

File:Green iguana (06643p).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2023 at 21:03:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Green iguana (06643p).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Green iguana (06643p).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Iguanidae_(Iguanas)
•  Info Almost all of the FPs we have of iguanas are headshots/partial body shots. This makes sense -- their heads are striking, and they're very long creatures relative to their size. This one was probably about 1.5m or so, so I opted for a panorama (4 frames). all by — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Support This was the first one I've seen in person. It was just basking along a wall by the water in a residential area. They're so much larger than I realized! — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Composition is great, but unfortunately there is serious blurring on one section and a stitching error as well as issues at the top edge towards middle/tail. See note. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose Temporary oppose until faults corrected. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• stitching error improved. Still partly blurred. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Charles Poco a poco (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Undecided yet, but currently leaning to the oppose side, because the background is really cluttered and so distracting. I agree the animal in full is interesting, compared to the other FPs showing only the head, however the blurry white and black patterns are very awkward, in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I know about the blurriness, and probably see the stitching error (but mainly I just see where the blurriness meets the not blurriness). I think this'll take some time to fix, which I unfortunately won't have until next week. Happy to come back to it, but I understand if that means folks might oppose. I'll also say I'm not sure if it's something that's properly fixable; we'll see. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: your comment seems related to Charles's review. My main concern personally is the background. And I'm split, because the animal is great but the general appearance unattractive and cluttered -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• Ah, yes, wrong place. Meant to be under Charles' initial comment. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Neutral after more consideration. A bokeh behind would have made the foreground more appealing -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Yes a chunk of the tail is a bit blurry and the background could have benefitted from more blurriness IMO. But that is a very eye catching longitudinal and thorough view. Better have this kind of flawed eye catching candidates then flawless boring ones. - Benh (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Please try to fix the marked stiching error. – Like Behn I think the result is still very impressive. We should also consider the resolution – if we would downscale this photo to the rather modest size most wildlife photos use, the defects would become invisible. --Aristeas (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment We don't "use" 'modest size'. We try to fill the frame. Why would you downscale when the height is a modest 2517 pixels out of 3456 available? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Support per Benh. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Support It might be 1st Panoramic shot of Animal; Rhododendrites, Charles ?! Well done. That small part, minor mistake- to small area. Front is top. --Mile (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Never tried it. Probably will now! But like a landscape, it does need to be technically OK. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I did check, colors are great, i saw you were on end of zoom - 300mm. If you have that 400mm and with multiplyer you could try one more - anoted. Just head. Would be marevlous shot. --Mile (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have the 150mm with 2x teleconverter=300. There is a 300mm and a 100-400mm of similar quality, which work with the teleconverter, but both are too expensive for me. There's another lower quality (not quite as expensive) 100-400mm, which I tested at one point, but didn't find the quality good enough, and it doesn't work with the teleconverter so it's just effectively a 100mm difference. So, alas, no more zoom for me anytime soon, I'm afraid. Besides, I was only in Florida for a week, and the only lizards we see in New York City are quite small. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Support More than impressive enough to overlook the minor (IMO) technical issues mentioned above. BigDom (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral per the issues Charles points, which seem like they're fixable. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Cool! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 14:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Support--UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
•  New version uploaded - Very thankful to Mile for taking the time to improve this image -- I've just uploaded his version, which addresses some of the blurriness, stitching error, and halos. Pings to those who expressed concern: @Daniel Case, Aristeas, Benh, Basile Morin, Charlesjsharp, and Poco a poco: — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Many thanks to Mile for his work! --Aristeas (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Support great idea, most of the issues mentioned above seem to be resolved. --El Grafo (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Iguanidae_(Iguanas)