Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eastern newt

Eastern newt[edit]

Reason: I think it's good shot of an Eastern newt. There are a few reflective spots to be fixed by someone better at these things.
Proposed caption: A terrestrial subadult Eastern newt or red eft, Notophthalmus viridescens. Salamanders of the family Salamandridae with aquatic adult stages are called newts. Some newts, including the Eastern newt, have a juvenile terrestrial stage called the eft. The red eft has aposematic coloring to warn predators of its highly toxic skin.
Articles this image appears in: Eastern Newt, Salamandridae
Creator: Cotinis

Support as nominator Cynops3 01:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I hadn't noticed the oversaturation. Radical.--Cynops3 13:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1 I think its beauty and the very good representation of the eft are more important than the out of focus tail and the strangely blurred background sticks. Enuja (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eeek, I can't believe I missed the color balance problem on peer review. I thought "it's a red eft", so I wasn't surprised that it looked red; I should have noticed that the background was more red that most bark and twigs. There have been generally more reviewers over at picture peer review, but this highlights the fact that having even more would be a very good thing. So my support is now switched to edit one. I didn't nominate this image here because it is small, but it is within the current requirements, and the eft itself (except for the tail) is very sharp and in focus, so I do support it. Enuja (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not face on enough, out of focus tail and there's a strange sorta look about it --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seems to suffer from poor WB --Fir0002 10:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the fix, looks a lot better, i so have no technical knowledge lol... --Childzy ¤ Talk 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I'd support it (the fixed up version) if we had it at higher res. --Sean 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original and edit 1 The edit looks much better (good work!) but i dont like the composition --Central Powers 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on edit 1. WOW. NICE job fir! --⁪froth^t 04:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks froth and others :) --Fir0002 10:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1. I liked this on peer review, but it needed work to bring it up to scratch. Great job on the Edit, that does it for me. I do like the composition and the newt itself. The size is tight, but within guidelines (unless I start counting the pixels ;-)). --jjron 13:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 A little on the small side but it still meets requirements. I can't see anything else wrong with it now that the color is fixed. And come on, it's a newt. :) CillaИ ♦ XC 01:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Per above (and a very nice newt at that). IPchanges ^{the box} 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Nice touch up Fir0002. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Notophthalmus viridescens edit.jpg MER-C 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from photographer[edit]

I'm honored by your kind comments and the nomination/election as a featured picture, but wanted to comment on the white balance issue. I feel the "corrected" version has gone a bit far towards the blue. The newt was quite ruddy, rather a light tan/orange, and now it looks more yellow. Part of the problem with the impression of color balance is that the "sticks" in the background are dried needles of the the Loblolly Pine, Pinus taeda, which really are rather rusty-red when dried. The critter is resting on a pine log, which also has rather reddish bark. Both are now not rusty enough, and the log has bluish highlights which are not true to the original. The pine needles are now yellow with little hint of red--not true to life. Nonetheless, the original was perhaps a bit too red. I'll probably go back to the original file and upload an update to Commons that goes about half-way in the correction at some point. These days that is my usual correction for photos shot with strobe flash, as this one was--correct towards neutral with Photoshop "auto color balance", and then fade it about 50 percent--that gives, to me, a fairly faithful representation of the original colors.

Again, thanks for the kind comments and constructive criticisms. I think the photo is a good illustration for the article, whatever the precise color balance issues. --Cotinis 15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]