Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 09:37:05 (UTC)
Original – Male komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) on Komodo Island, Indonesia. A reptile's forked tongue allows it to sense from which direction a smell is coming.
Reason
Through to second round of Commons Picture of the Year 2017
Support – Impressive with good EV; I'm not too fond of the black shadow (a little too harsh), but it doesn't detract from the picture quality. —Bruce1eetalk12:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry to vote against this one, but the combination of harsh shadows, and the fact that most of the animal has been cut off (the image looks like the animal is very wide, but in reality is quite long) means low EV. Mattximus (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Very striking and aesthetically pleasing picture of a komodo dragon. I'm not keen on the shadows for EV purposes, however. They seem almost black — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally the harsh shadows are intentional to show menace with the extended tongue. I took other photos of the whole animal and of males fighting, but I chose this one to feature. The animal is so large, if you show it all you don't get the menace, nor the detail of head, tongue and front leg. Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I get the menace. My issue is that this choice, though very appropriate for a more aesthetics-oriented site like Commons (not to mention hard to avoid this close to the equator), limits the image's EV in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The dramatic, constrasty sidelighting makes for a striking image and doesn't detract at all from the EV. Genuinely not sure what the problem is. – Juliancolton | Talk17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can clarify. The main function of a photo on wikipedia should be encyclopedic: does it accurately portray the animal? In this case, having more than half the animal out of frame, and the half that is in frame obscured by shadow does not fit this description. It certainly is articistic, and "menacing", however it's not encyclopedic. For example, would you know that it is shaped like this based on this image? Mattximus (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it shows its forked tongue very clearly, the role of which is discussed in the article; and it's the only picture in the article showing its tongue. So there's EV. —Bruce1eetalk06:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken both photos, I can explain further. The full length picture is good for the header photo as it illustrates the whole animal. But it cannot do justice to this most fearsome of reptiles. For that you need the nominated image. Think about human portraits. Do we reject all of them? Think about education. Which image would you use to talk to children about this creature? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took the liberty to replace the old version with a gamma-corrected one, please see if this might fare better... If you don't like it, feel free to revert it on the file page! --Janke | Talk14:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
