A good close up, in natural environment, of a native Australian specie. Exemplifies the line: "Despite being so brightly colored and having distinctive marks it blends in well with its rainforest home".
Oppose, the encyclopaedic value would be greater without the "cut off" composition. The technical quality also leaves much to be desired, it is fairly soft, noisy and the levels need adjusting. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added an alternate version, with almost all of the body showing. Background has some blown out highlights though. As for noise and softness, that's the quality my camera gives out... Zoharby (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative version is better, but it still doesn't meet the technical requirements I am afraid. You might try valued pictures if it has been stably in the article for a month. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative version I think that shows the camoflauge effect well which makes for an interesting picture, not just a portrait of the animal. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Though enc is much higher in the alternate, softness, noise, and blown highlights (especially in the alt.) prevent me from supporting. SpencerT♦C20:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeing with you otherwise, but the blown highlights aren't really relevant in the background where they look fine in my opinion. If anything it is a tad underexposed Noodle snacks (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to address some of the problems. Uploaded Alternate Edit1, which was processed with noise cleaning and sharpening. I think it's quite better. As for the blown highlights in the background, there was really nothing I could do. Rain forests tend to be shady, with small patches of direct sunlight penetrating through the thick vegetation. Using flash with a lower exposure would have caused the rest of the background to be way too dark, missing the whole camouflage effect. Zoharby (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Only the technical quality stops me from supporting as the composition and EV are very good. I agree with Noodle snacks that blown highlights in the background are not very problematic and not distracting. Only if the blown highlights are in the subject or ruin the composition (ie completely washed out white sky) should it really matter. I think that should probably be cleared up in the criteria, if we can agree on it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded Alternate Edit3 - Selective extra-sharpening on foreground only, same noise reduction as Edit1. This is my final attempt to get it to a higher quality. Hope you find it good enough... Zoharby (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shadows are much too dark. Has a "drawing-like" feeling, probably due to over-aggressive noise cleaning. Doesn't really look natural anymore. Zoharby (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original is swimming in green, which may be roughly representative of the setting (or not, hard to tell), but an image free of cast is better for illustrating the subject imho. Dragging up the exposure afterwards should be easy enough - I don't know if this camera does RAW, which obviously would be ideal to go back to. Someone may also have the opportunity to edit the existing jpeg in 16 or 32 bit colour space before going back to jpeg. The only program I have available here only does 8 bits, sorry! (On that note, I don't think I've ever seen anyone upload a RAW file, and I can't think why...) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the camera listed in the exif would be capable of raw output. Four edits starts making things a bit confusing but I think at this stage 4 is looking the best. It is just about passable at a reference size of 1000px wide or so. Since you probably have a PSD or similar, could you selectively remove the last bit of the grain from the background? You can get very aggressive there with the NR without problems since there is no detail to preserve. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have it saved as a Paint Shop Pro (PSP) file, can try to convert it something else if it helps (probably just save it as a black/white raster image). It's not 100% accurate, but pretty good. Zoharby (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest format to use would probably be a greyscale copy of the mask (jpeg/gif/png/bmp, whatever). Can you make one with PSP? I'll upload any changes I make to the mask. Thanks, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that dark patches are now almost completely black. Look at the eye for example (Edit3 vs. Edit4). Some of the detail is lost in edit 4. Sorry for the noisy original, but that's what this camera is capable of... Back in 2004 when I bought it, the only alternative was a really expensive DSLR... It is capable of saving RAW, but as memory cards were also very expensive at the time (the 2GB card I bought for the trip cost me more than 200$), I didn't take any RAW files... Thanks again guys for all the effort you're putting into trying to make it look better :) --Zoharby (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be pushing the limits of criteria 8 (Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation). I don't think the two images are similar enough to blend together seamlessly, either. The angle is different, the toning is different, the level of detail is different (which is the point of the exercise, although I think it will also make it look pretty fake when combined). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updated Alt Edit3. Tried to remove the green-yellow cast, but a bit less aggressively than Papa's version. I think it looks a bit more natural than Edit4, and has much more detail in the dark areas. While it's somewhat more noisy than Edit4 (foreground only), I think has a bit more fine detail that was lost in the noise cleaning process in Edit4. Zoharby (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
