Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pobblebonk

I like the sharpness and colors of this photo and although in the cut out his top RHS leg looks a little funny, the cut out is pretty good.

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 08:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lighting looks a bit boring, just the flash on top of your camera, right? The second one looks more like an icon. Tint it blue and use it for Azureus. --Dschwen 09:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not stunning, and see above. --Dschwen 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- of the two I much prefer the non-cutout version. The background is admittedly bland, but preferable in my opinion to the disembodied feel of the cutout. I will say that I'm not sure how I would vote once the waiting period is up--I'm thinking it over. Jwrosenzweig 23:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a cute guy that makes me smile but I've seen much more striking frog pics. I think last weeks' nominated frog had the edge on this one, but that wasn't quite FP standard for me either. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support first. Sharp picture contributes to the frog's species article. I'm not bothered by the background. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would prefer to see more of the frog in focus. Also, I dislike the (apparently) artificial lighting used. enochlau (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. I like it, actually. Yes, it appears flash-lit, but in comparison to another frog pic recently submitted, I don't feel like the blown out reflections are that bad in this pic. Image is very sharp. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support first - like the contrast between the frog and the background. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Depth of focus. --Wikimol 23:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]