Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cane Toad

Cane Toad

Cane Toad Bufo marinus

Edit 01. Not cropped as tightly and not as bright.

Edit 02. Balance lighting, bring out the frog a bit, auto-colored but with only a slight clip on the highlights BRIAN0918

I found this image while look through Froggydarb's gallery, when he had the Litoria phyllochroa up for FPC. It is really clear, looks very good in full resolution and is encyclopedic.

This image appears on the Cane Toad page and was created by Froggydarb

Nominate and support. - Philby power 01:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above user "Philby power" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Philby Power" is not a sockpuppet of GarretRock, I know that for a fact. Froggydarb 22:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Oppose. The picture seems a little too cropped, but overall the photo quality is alright. Maybe Froggydarb still has the original? --Mad Max 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upload one that isn't cropped as tightly. Froggydarb 06:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong support. Great focus. Ugily frog but perfect photo.211.30.199.85 06:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User is a vandal --Fir0002 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Weak oppose. Sharp, in focus, but that strong flash lighting and stark shadow just kills it for me... --Janke | Talk 06:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately thats what happens when taking pictures at night. Froggydarb 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't move too much, could you try a long exposure (eg, 3 seconds?). Or, are they active during the day at all? Stevage 11:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hard to find one during the day. Froggydarb 14:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, take a sheet of white paper/plastic, or aluminum foil, set it up on the opposite side of the subject to reflect some flash light into the shadows. (Would it even be possible with these hoppers, are they active or lethargic? ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na, it wouldn't be all that easy. They do hop around a bit and it just to difficult when you are out in the field to do that. Besides you are too close to the subject for this method to really work, and even if you could get far enough away you couldn't position the reflective surface to bounce the flash under the chin of the subject. The only way this could really work is if I had more than one flash, one on the camera and one on a mount pointing under the chin of the subject. Froggydarb 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about a flash/long exposure combo ? (forget the exact term for this) Stevage 16:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you still get slave flashes - the ones that have a photocell that trigger them when they "see" the camera's flash? A couple of those would do wonders! --Janke | Talk 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. The lighting kills it for me. --Pharaoh Hound 12:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an edit that attempts to balance out the lighting, and I used selective blurring/sharpening to bring out the frog a bit and reduce the distraction of the leaves a bit. If the highlights are still too bright, that can easily be fixed. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-14 13:19

It's not the brightness that's the problem so much as the strong shadows, and regardless of editing it will still look like a flash was used (I hate flash, it looks awful). --Pharaoh Hound 19:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is just discriminating against all nocturnal animal pictures. You need to use a flash, it's that simple. Froggydarb 03:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, you don't technically need to use "a flash", you need to use "lighting" - which could incorporate one or more flashes, or static lighting (presuming that it doesn't scare the creature off). A flash is obviously a hell of a lot more convenient though :) Stevage 17:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~. I guess I should support it, it's encyclopedic and (besides lighting) is atractive to look at. --Pharaoh Hound 12:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 --Pharaoh Hound 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's attractive to look at? You aren't from Australia are you :)? --liquidGhoul 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm Canadian. We haven't been invaded by Cane Toads :). --Pharaoh Hound 21:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose seems a little dark. Anonymous__Anonymous 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean dark overall (which can be fixed), or just the shadow under the frog? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-14 14:42

- I'd weak support if the lighting can be fixed even more. Obviously you can't edit the shadow underneath the animal, but I wouldn't mind the picture being slightly brighter. It seems overall too dark. Your first edit Brian is better than the original, but not quite in the ballpark yet. --Mad Max 02:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - It is dark overall. Anonymous__Anonymous 11:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do not find anything particularly remarkable about the photograph; it's not really featured image material. Nicholasink 19:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great shot! Ugly toad, but that's not your fault:) I like the position of the toad's arms! good shot. tiger35

Above user "tiger35" is a confirmed sockpuppet. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit02. It really is an excellent photo of one of the most disgusting creatures. A lot of detail can be seen on whole body. Exceptionally encyclopaedic. Stevage 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 - good detail, sharp. --P199 16:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This photo is technically sound (sharp, good resolution) and pertinent to the article it adorns. However, it should have something more than that to be featured, IMO. Maybe a shot of the same subject with a different background or lighting would do it. (I understand this might be difficult to achieve, but that would make such a photo even more FP-worthy.) -- moondigger 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Moondigger, flash lighting kills it. --Fir0002 09:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest what lighting should be used. Froggydarb 09:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failing daylight I would suggest ideally a macro flash ring or an umbrella flash. This is obviously specialized and expensive equipment but it is probably the only real solution. By using a mounted flash you could direct the flash onto a white piece of paper to get a diffused "reflection flash". Also by using a tripod and relatively slow shutter speed/high ISO you could use some of the ambient light and require less flash --Fir0002 10:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support one of the few encyclopaedic up for nom and very good detail Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]