492:
wobbly kids with different markings look like. (Your praying mantis was probably trying to blend in with his surroundings when he was nabbed, but nonetheless turns out to be quite photogenic in the studio). If this was illustrating camouflage, that characteristic should make a more immediate impact on the viewer (like the "Lace
Monitor" FPC above and some other FPs I've seen). The interesting juxtaposition here is between the 2 animals, not the animals and their environment, and that's what the background takes away from. I also think the one on the right's coat is too whited-out, making the photo look a little flat.
42:
34:
64:
53:
440:. Until the day comes when Fir can get a dozen healthy goats (two of each sex aged exactly 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 fortnight, 1 month, and 1 year), lined up with equal distance between each other, standing a freshly mowed field of green grass, all facing the camera and smiling... this picture will do just fine.
763:
You can't possibly determine tilt without any valid reference points. The background cannot be used because it appears to be tilted through perspective and/or the slight incline of a hill. In any case, such an image does not rely on such precise horizontal accuracy. I suppose the point of arguing was
491:
That's a valid point generally, but it's not a strong enough consideration in this case for me. What I see here is a portrait of the animals themselves, not camouflage. They're engaging with the photographer and us by extension, standing in what could be a studio pose contrived to illustrate what two
645:
of being defensive, but seems to me you're clutch on straws to hang on to your oppose vote. Why shouldn't they be different colored? Do you think all goats are white? Because it's an encyclopaedia is all the more reason to have variation, giving a better representation of the species. Please confine
481:
As I mentioned over at the commons, why would the animals have a contrasting coloration to their background? It is in their best interests to blend in with their surroundings! Particularly at this early stage when they are very vulnerable, as their mothers often leave them by themselves for a period
124:
I also don't like the way the white goat blends in with the grass. I'm thinking that a bright green grass background would be great to get both goats, but, this being fall in the southern hemisphere, I guess the goats will be older and not as cute by the time you could get a bright contrast. Maybe
815:
While I still wouldn't put too much faith on the fence posts as absolute vertical since from my experience they can start to lean over time, they're clearly the most reliable source in this image. There is no horizon, perspective can greatly affect what would otherwise horizontal lines, and animals
640:
I find comments like that immensely irritating and not very productive. It seems because I have a number of FP's people think they can use the "it's not your private photo show etc etc etc" to oppose an image. Where exactly is it stipulated that "Thou shalt not address comments on thy photos"? You
858:
I would argue that they are leaning the correct way. From the perspective, it appears that the hill gets higher towards the right side of the frame and the goats are leaning towards that hill. This is normal. Would you expect them to lean away from the hill? I agree, let common sense prevail. Its
617:
No reason to be so defensive, but okay, if it's not about colour variation, why does it have two differently coloured kids in it? This is an encyclopaedia, I wouldn't want children thinking goats pop out in uneven pairs because that's what you chose to take a picture of. This is not your private
378:
It was a fine shot without the crop, just a bit over-exposed. Some selective tonal correction - or shooting with a polarizer, perhaps - would help the white kid stand out from the bg, but equally a -0.5 gamma shift would do the job. I'd support a darker version & will reserve my vote pending
138:
Well I wholeheartedly wish it was a green background too - it hasn't rained well in months! No red barns, this is
Australian not Kansas! However I take issue with saying it has to appear in an article on coat genetics to be enc, it's an interesting side fact but by no means detracts from the
501:
I assure you that they are not in a studio pose - they are not at all familiar with humans at that age and won't allow people to get near them. Hence the use of the 200mm lens. As to the white of the baby - that's what it looks like! It's a fluffy bundle of pure white!
816:
don't always stand straight, particularly on a hill. I would say the fence posts and the fact that both animals have their heads vertical in the photo suggests it is near enough untilted. This is not a defense of Fir0002's ego, this is just my opinion on the matter.
284:
They seem to be on sloped ground. There is something like a fence in the background, and the lines between the boards seem to be vertical, although it's hard to make out since it's quite blurry. But it's noticeable that their heads tilt the other way. ~
227:
Color enhancement is the summary term for increasing saturation, contrast, luminosity, etc., in order to create a better separation of objects from the background. This has nothing to do with the fidelity to the original, this common imaging lingo. ~
125:
they live in a red barn that could be used as a contrasting background? I love they way they are both posed, looking at the camera, but the background just kills it. Also, to be encyclopedic, this should illustrate an article about coat genetics.
185:
The bulk of the bodies is what needs to be balanced, also there is a stretch of darker grass on the right border. In any case, I added an edit that's both cropped and increases the contrast between white goat and the background. ~
904:
Ummm...you can't lean away from a hill. Well, you can for a second, but then you roll down it. The goats probably have their knees bent a little on the higher side. That's how I would stand on a hill.
111:
lighting is very cold, right animal has poor contrast with background, white of the right animal's coat is a bit harsh (due to the lighting, more than a poor exposure) foreground grass a bit distracting.
580:. If the colour variation is supposed to be the theme of this image, "as far as I know" is not very good information as to the identity of the father. Goats are not at all monogamous.
694:
Ahem, we also don't want children thinking that all goats are the same color. And I think it is perfectly appropriate for the photographer to try to address the opposers' concerns. --
511:
I wasn't trying to imply that it was a studio pose, just that if a photographer were to (somehow) get them to pose, this would be a good one (especially with the up and down ears).
1031:
714:
Yes, if he manages to do so without being dismissive. It's just about possible that I made the comments for a reason, but if you don't want to know, fine!
75:
17:
647:
176:
I strongly disagree, the composition is great the way it is. The goats heads capture the attention, and they are balanced within the frame. --
734:
Well if you are unwilling to provide appropriate reasons to oppose this image then I suggest you reconsider or strike out your vote... --
1017:
1004:
992:
973:
951:
909:
899:
872:
853:
829:
810:
790:
781:
758:
738:
729:
709:
683:
674:
654:
633:
612:
595:
572:
561:
546:
515:
506:
496:
486:
472:
458:
444:
432:
411:
399:
387:
370:
354:
331:
315:
302:
289:
279:
267:
254:
232:
222:
206:
190:
180:
171:
159:
143:
129:
116:
103:
959:
The white goat's back is a bit overexposed, and it's tail is slightly blurry, but a lovely image overall. On my desktop already. :) ·
604:
OK it was a pure white father as we only have white billies. Aside from that I can't see any validity in your vote as the image is
895:
849:
806:
754:
725:
670:
629:
591:
868:
825:
777:
428:
218:
in the caption. Who is to say that it really is an enhancement? If anybody than it should be an eyewitness, i.e. Fir. --
82:
Beautiful image of two baby goats about a week old. Despite their very different appearance but were born of the same
704:
349:
385:
263:- Lovely picture. It is a shame the background is not different to make a better contrast with the white goat.
155:
It's not bad, and it's encyclopedic, but I think the goat on the top of the article page is of higher quality.-
618:
photography contest, Fir. If you want credit for taking beautiful pics, for heaven's sake take it to
Commons!
1014:
906:
74:
787:
286:
229:
187:
168:
83:
834:
Diliff, even if animals on a hill won't always stand straight, then in this case they are certainly
786:
The dark lines of the fence are quite clearly visible, and they're vertical. The rest is hogwash. ~
419:. Edit washes out the blacks a bit. I don't have a problem with the background. Good quality image.
558:
454:
380:
328:
989:
889:
843:
800:
748:
719:
664:
623:
585:
554:– background and white goat have too little contrast. It's a good photo, but not FP-worthy --
961:
865:
822:
774:
542:
441:
425:
299:
276:
264:
367:
41:
555:
450:
1025:
1001:
986:
700:
534:
345:
214:: another thing is bugging me about the edit. I find it rather presumptuous to state
90:
948:
885:
839:
796:
744:
735:
715:
680:
660:
651:
619:
609:
581:
569:
512:
503:
493:
483:
469:
312:
251:
219:
203:
177:
140:
100:
33:
327:
The tilt barely distracts me from the subject, which is photographed wonderfully.
982:
860:
817:
769:
420:
408:
113:
985:
above. The constrast between the white goat and the background is a problem.
947:
If
Terrence Malick made movies about goats, they'd probably look like this. --
608:
meant to illustrate colour variation - it's not even in an article on that! --
363:
156:
126:
396:
63:
695:
340:
659:
Let him who cast the first stone - oh, no, the original is different...
379:
that. I'm not sure the 'slant' is a real, FP-obstructing problem, FWIW.
198:. For the compositon the elements that attract attention are important.
52:
838:. Please guys, let the laws of physics and common sense prevail here!
859:
just that I think common sense is on my side in this example. ;-)
294:
I agree that the pic is probably not tilted. Nevertheless the
468:
The goats are great, but the background almost eats them up.
533:- Well, if Featured Pictures won't take them, I'm sure that
795:
And we all know that gravity is measured in fence units.
679:
Umm sorry... not really sure what you mean by that! --
743:
It's tilted anyway, so what's the point in arguing?
646:
yourself to judging a photo based on the guidelines
275:Surely tilted (or do goats stand like that?) -
8:
395:-- I nominated it a bit late though. :-D --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
1011:Not promoted Image:Baby goats jan 2007.jpg
1000:- cold lighting, low background contrast.
882:goats have two short legs on the hill side
167:, but needs to be cropped on the right. ~
877:No, that is not normal. It requires that
449:That of course being two-dozen goats, ;)
86:, and AFAIK, the same pure white father.
73:
62:
51:
40:
32:
7:
202:because of bg contrast problems. --
1032:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
1:
78:Floppy ears and knobby knees
70:: ...and so is the horizon!
1048:
710:16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
634:15:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
613:06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
596:01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
573:20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
562:05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
547:04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
516:22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
507:22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
497:09:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
487:07:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
473:02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
459:21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
445:21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
433:20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
412:12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
400:14:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
388:14:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
371:10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
355:23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
332:20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
316:11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
303:21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
290:19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
280:13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
268:09:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
255:08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
250:- encyclopedic and good --
223:07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
207:15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
191:06:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
181:10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
172:07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
160:06:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
144:11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
130:05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
117:04:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
104:00:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
48:: cropped, color enhanced
362:Background distracts. --
298:tilt spoils it for me -
139:illustration of a kid --
1018:10:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
1005:05:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
993:16:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
974:18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
952:07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
910:21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
900:17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
873:16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
854:16:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
830:14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
811:13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
791:06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
782:09:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
759:09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
739:07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
730:22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
684:07:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
675:22:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
655:06:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
233:06:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
37:A pair of week old kids
884:. How likely is that?
407:, poor background. --
79:
71:
60:
59:: Goats are askew, ...
49:
38:
836:leaning the wrong way
768:reason for opposing.
482:of time and graze. --
417:Support original only
200:Weak support original
77:
66:
55:
44:
36:
311:taken on a hill. --
80:
72:
61:
50:
39:
894:
871:
848:
828:
805:
780:
753:
724:
708:
669:
628:
590:
457:
431:
353:
84:pure white mother
1039:
1015:The Sunshine Man
972:
892:
863:
846:
820:
803:
772:
751:
722:
698:
667:
626:
588:
453:
438:Support Original
423:
393:Support Original
343:
300:Adrian Pingstone
277:Adrian Pingstone
1047:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1022:
1021:
960:
788:trialsanderrors
287:trialsanderrors
230:trialsanderrors
216:colors enhanced
188:trialsanderrors
169:trialsanderrors
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1045:
1043:
1035:
1034:
1024:
1023:
1008:
1007:
995:
976:
954:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
599:
598:
575:
564:
549:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
476:
475:
463:
462:
461:
435:
414:
402:
390:
373:
357:
334:
329:Imaninjapirate
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
292:
270:
258:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
162:
149:
148:
147:
146:
133:
132:
119:
106:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1044:
1033:
1030:
1029:
1027:
1020:
1019:
1016:
1012:
1006:
1003:
999:
996:
994:
991:
988:
984:
980:
977:
975:
971:
970:
967:
964:
958:
955:
953:
950:
946:
943:
942:
911:
908:
903:
902:
901:
897:
891:
887:
883:
881:
876:
875:
874:
870:
867:
862:
857:
856:
855:
851:
845:
841:
837:
833:
832:
831:
827:
824:
819:
814:
813:
812:
808:
802:
798:
794:
793:
792:
789:
785:
784:
783:
779:
776:
771:
767:
764:to produce a
762:
761:
760:
756:
750:
746:
742:
741:
740:
737:
733:
732:
731:
727:
721:
717:
713:
712:
711:
706:
702:
697:
693:
685:
682:
678:
677:
676:
672:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
653:
649:
644:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
631:
625:
621:
616:
615:
614:
611:
607:
603:
602:
601:
600:
597:
593:
587:
583:
579:
576:
574:
571:
568:
565:
563:
560:
557:
553:
550:
548:
545:
544:
539:
536:
535:Cute Overload
532:
529:
528:
517:
514:
510:
509:
508:
505:
500:
499:
498:
495:
490:
489:
488:
485:
480:
479:
478:
477:
474:
471:
467:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
447:
446:
443:
439:
436:
434:
430:
427:
422:
418:
415:
413:
410:
406:
403:
401:
398:
394:
391:
389:
386:
384:
383:
377:
374:
372:
369:
365:
361:
358:
356:
351:
347:
342:
339:I like it. --
338:
335:
333:
330:
326:
323:
317:
314:
310:
306:
305:
304:
301:
297:
293:
291:
288:
283:
282:
281:
278:
274:
271:
269:
266:
262:
259:
256:
253:
249:
246:
234:
231:
226:
225:
224:
221:
217:
213:
210:
209:
208:
205:
201:
197:
194:
193:
192:
189:
184:
183:
182:
179:
175:
174:
173:
170:
166:
163:
161:
158:
154:
151:
150:
145:
142:
137:
136:
135:
134:
131:
128:
123:
120:
118:
115:
110:
107:
105:
102:
98:
95:
94:
93:
92:
91:Domestic goat
87:
85:
76:
69:
68:Imperfections
65:
58:
57:Imperfections
54:
47:
43:
35:
29:
26:
19:
1010:
1009:
997:
978:
968:
965:
962:
956:
944:
907:67.86.86.217
879:
878:
835:
765:
642:
605:
577:
566:
551:
541:
537:
530:
465:
437:
416:
404:
392:
381:
375:
359:
336:
324:
308:
295:
272:
261:Weak support
260:
247:
215:
211:
199:
195:
164:
153:Weak Support
152:
121:
108:
99:Self Nom. --
96:
88:
81:
67:
56:
45:
27:
543:TotoBaggins
442:Chicago god
360:Weak oppose
265:Alvesgaspar
196:Oppose Edit
109:Weak Oppose
89:Appears in
869:(Contribs)
826:(Contribs)
778:(Contribs)
429:(Contribs)
28:Baby Goats
556:jacobolus
451:Pstuart84
1026:Category
1002:Debivort
987:David D.
896:contribs
850:contribs
807:contribs
755:contribs
726:contribs
705:contribs
671:contribs
630:contribs
592:contribs
540:. :) --
350:contribs
337:Support.
307:Picture
296:apparent
998:neutral
957:Support
949:Bagginz
945:Support
886:Samsara
840:Samsara
797:Samsara
745:Samsara
736:Fir0002
716:Samsara
681:Fir0002
661:Samsara
652:Fir0002
641:accuse
620:Samsara
610:Fir0002
582:Samsara
570:Tomer T
567:Support
531:Comment
513:bobanny
504:Fir0002
494:bobanny
484:Fir0002
470:bobanny
376:Comment
325:Support
313:Fir0002
257:penubag
252:Penubag
248:Support
220:Dschwen
212:Comment
204:Dschwen
178:Dschwen
165:Support
141:Fir0002
101:Fir0002
97:Support
990:(Talk)
983:Fcb981
979:Oppose
966:ndonic
866:(Talk)
861:Diliff
823:(Talk)
818:Diliff
775:(Talk)
770:Diliff
578:Oppose
552:Oppose
466:Oppose
426:(Talk)
421:Diliff
409:Avenue
405:Oppose
382:mikaul
273:Oppose
122:Oppose
114:Fcb981
46:Edit 1
766:valid
650:!! --
364:Janke
157:DMCer
127:Enuja
16:<
981:per
890:talk
880:both
844:talk
801:talk
749:talk
720:talk
701:talk
665:talk
648:here
624:talk
586:talk
538:will
455:Talk
397:Arad
368:Talk
346:talk
696:KFP
606:not
559:(t)
341:KFP
309:was
1028::
1013:--
898:)
864:|
852:)
821:|
809:)
773:|
757:)
728:)
703:|
673:)
643:me
632:)
594:)
502:--
424:|
366:|
348:|
969:O
963:A
893:•
888:(
847:•
842:(
804:•
799:(
752:•
747:(
723:•
718:(
707:)
699:(
668:•
663:(
627:•
622:(
589:•
584:(
352:)
344:(
112:-
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
