Wikipedia:Picture peer review/20120623 Sqwiki the Squirrel at Wiknic.JPG
I consider this image a rare contribution of the split second in which an animal takes food from the still hand of a human. It demonstrates the human interaction with the ecosystem of public parks when humans choose to feed the wildlife. The shot has its drawbacks. I was not expecting the shot and did not have my camera set for motion photography. Thus the extremely rapid movement of the squirrel to snatch the french fry is not as sharp as would be optimal. However, we can see the hand is in focus. Also, I clipped a few whiskers off the back of the tail. However, the rarity of the photo makes up for its foibles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Functional ecology
Human impact on the environment
Environment (biophysical)
Environmental science
Ecosystem
- Creator
- TonyTheTiger
- Suggested by
- TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Cute picture but I don't think Sqwiki the Squirrel has as much of an impact in these articles as say a bear eating out of trash or some other large dangerous animal. Secondly the edge of the backpack in the picture is distracting. I don't think it has a chance of being a FP, sorry. Main reason is there is very minimal EV I think for this picture in these articles, unless they specifically talk about squirrel feeding as a big environmental impact then it's probably not the best example, and the backpack distraction makes it look not professional and more snapshotty. — raekyt 15:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- To add more, I think something like this could be staged pretty easily in a park, with a tripod, and a remote trigger, squirrels from my experience in public parks are plentiful and eager to take food from people who are not threatening them.. heh. The motion blur should be countered with a fill flash, a good overhead EX canon would do wonders for the shot and to sharpen it up, and fix that it was in shadow, and by staging it you can zoom out some and use the high megapixel camera to crop the image in postprocessing to correct any framing issues. If this type of image would be high EV for these articles, then I suggest getting a tripod, flash, and remote trigger to hold in your hand, then spend some time with the squirrels. ;-) With the motion blur, no fill flash (dark subject) and framing issues and backpack, it has no chance of passing FP since it can be easily repeatable with just a little patience and time. — raekyt 15:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- We could replace the backpack with grass, but I can't adjust for the motion blur after the fact. As the people at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 6 can attest, this was a very spontaneous shot. I was very lucky to get it on my only take. If I were to stage it I would surely set my camera to continuous shooting and hope to get the same split second of full extension by the squirrel and simultaneous possession by the human. Admittedly, this picture needs to be complemented by a do not feed the animals sign or something. I never really thought about why a lot of parks have signs about not feeding the animals until I posted this picture. Sure, it is not the most important disturbance of the ecosystem by humans, but it is non-negligible. If the motion blur is not ignorable, then it won't pass. I am not convinced that the picture is as replaceable as you suggest. Like my current FP, it is something you would think we could replace. Every night for six months a year there are thousands of members of the public with cameras at baseball games. I don't think you will see an image of this split second of nature photography on wikipedia at this quality in the near future. P.S. you vastly underestimate the squirrel noises made by my fellow wikipedian to lure this squirrel.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not all parks have such policies, so maybe the animals at that park are a little more people-shy then others. I know at my local city park they are very accustomed to being fed, so getting one, with some practice and time, to eat something out of your hand at the right spot the camera is setup would be fairly doable, might take a day or two of trying, obviously, but doable. Wildlife photography is difficult, either getting them to do what you want, like this example, or just getting a photograph of them. Our resident expert on bird photography, JJ Harrison, would attest at the difficulty of getting some of his bird photographs. Demonstrating the difficulty of the shot doesn't diminish the fact that it's repeatable by someone at maybe a park with more human-accustomed squirrels. But even with the demonstration that it was spontaneous, lucky and difficult to reproduce, not having a fill flash or the backpack would be difficult to overlook, so my opinion is that it can't pass because of those flaws. Do you have an external flash unit for your camera? If not it may be one of the next pieces of equipment to consider, something with a lot more power than the built-in. — raekyt 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- We could replace the backpack with grass, but I can't adjust for the motion blur after the fact. As the people at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 6 can attest, this was a very spontaneous shot. I was very lucky to get it on my only take. If I were to stage it I would surely set my camera to continuous shooting and hope to get the same split second of full extension by the squirrel and simultaneous possession by the human. Admittedly, this picture needs to be complemented by a do not feed the animals sign or something. I never really thought about why a lot of parks have signs about not feeding the animals until I posted this picture. Sure, it is not the most important disturbance of the ecosystem by humans, but it is non-negligible. If the motion blur is not ignorable, then it won't pass. I am not convinced that the picture is as replaceable as you suggest. Like my current FP, it is something you would think we could replace. Every night for six months a year there are thousands of members of the public with cameras at baseball games. I don't think you will see an image of this split second of nature photography on wikipedia at this quality in the near future. P.S. you vastly underestimate the squirrel noises made by my fellow wikipedian to lure this squirrel.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- To add more, I think something like this could be staged pretty easily in a park, with a tripod, and a remote trigger, squirrels from my experience in public parks are plentiful and eager to take food from people who are not threatening them.. heh. The motion blur should be countered with a fill flash, a good overhead EX canon would do wonders for the shot and to sharpen it up, and fix that it was in shadow, and by staging it you can zoom out some and use the high megapixel camera to crop the image in postprocessing to correct any framing issues. If this type of image would be high EV for these articles, then I suggest getting a tripod, flash, and remote trigger to hold in your hand, then spend some time with the squirrels. ;-) With the motion blur, no fill flash (dark subject) and framing issues and backpack, it has no chance of passing FP since it can be easily repeatable with just a little patience and time. — raekyt 15:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Tony, I think this picture is awesome but not quite for the reason you mentioned. What you see here is not just any ecosystem interaction. It is actually much more. This is the domestication of the first rodent the human race will domesticate. Squirrels fill roughly the same urban ecological niche as cats do, except that they are resistant to snow and require more tree. In addition, they have not been domesticated yet. But since we find them to be cute this is just a matter of time. What you see on that picture is the same process that got us dogs, cats, cows, sheep and horses. These species traveled on an evolutionary path that starts as you see in that picture and ends in complete symbiosis with us. And these are the five articles that would gain from having that picture but you will probably have to work hard to find the scholarly papers that claim all that I just did. If we had many pictures of squirrels eating from hands, technical issues would matter. I don't think we do. High EV in my mind drives us all the way home. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 02:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am not prepared to say humans are going to domesticate the entire population of squirrels, but this one has been tamed so I included it in that section of domestication. I also think this may be an example of ecological niche. I don't see the relevance to the other three.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. there may be a form of symbiosis when humans feed park animals. It is not clear to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Many rodents have been domesticated and others live in human environments. The activity shown is dangerous - not domestication. Squirrels are wild animals. 75.208.45.156 (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- The link to symbiosis and evolutionary path requires the use of a crystal ball. That is why I said it might be hard to find the expert that happened to write that down, even though it seems quite clear to me that this process would start to be visable, in so much as a century or so. It is perfectly reasonable not to want to engage our readers with such speculations. The two placements you did chose to make are very nice, and I feel quite content as it is. Domestication was my key point, and that one is all that really matters. Thank you for taking that picture. As you see, using my crystal ball, I find it quite more valuable than would seem otherwise.
- I am not prepared to say humans are going to domesticate the entire population of squirrels, but this one has been tamed so I included it in that section of domestication. I also think this may be an example of ecological niche. I don't see the relevance to the other three.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
