Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-backed Toadlet

Original - The Red-backed Toadlet (Pseudophryne coriacea) from eastern Australia.

Edit 1 by Fir0002 - NR, colour balance, sharpening, corrected lens (?) shadow in lower RHS

Reason: Clear and accurate photograph of this species, which is quite hard to photograph due to its nocturnal habits, small size and bulging eyes (need to get a second flash very low to the ground so the eye doesn't create a shadow over the rest of the face).
Articles this image appears in: Red-backed Toadlet
Creator: liquidGhoul (talk)

Support as nominator liquidGhoul (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support I think with a bit of sharpening on the front foot, this will work. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Edit 1 - sounds like it was quite a difficult shot to get, however I think you could have positioned your second flash a bit better so that the shadow cast by the head was minimized. --Fir0002 10:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neutral - I'm ambivalent by this nom. It seems like a case where the subject may just not be conducive to an FP - the lighting is harsh, as are the highlights. I don't know if subject matter can/should preclude an image from promotion, so I'm going neutral here. de Bivort 17:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both - Sorry, but the lighting is just not right -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both bad lightning/not sharp enough. —αἰτίας •discussion• 11:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Poor lighting and sharpness. Also, it took me a couple seconds to figure out what I was looking at, and at first glance, it hardly looks like a toad. Juliancolton (Talk) 15:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]