Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Turdus Merula female: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
*'''Support Edit2 or Edit3''' - It was harder to do than I expected, but here is a version in which the most annoying grass blade has been cloned out. [[User:Debivort|Debivort]] 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Support Edit2 or Edit3''' - It was harder to do than I expected, but here is a version in which the most annoying grass blade has been cloned out. [[User:Debivort|Debivort]] 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak Support edit 3''' I do like this image with the alterations as noted --[[User:Newton2|New]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">'''t'''</font>]][[User talk:Newton2|on2]] 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Weak Support edit 3''' I do like this image with the alterations as noted --[[User:Newton2|New]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">'''t'''</font>]][[User talk:Newton2|on2]] 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support'' Edit 3. I'm a huge fan. The bird looks like she (he?) is staring at you, the feathers are fantastically clear, and the remaining blurry stems and background give context. [[User:Enuja|Enuja]] 00:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{-}} |
{{-}} |
||
Revision as of 00:46, 16 April 2007
- Reason
- High resolution shot, made with a Maksutov 300mm telescope. Shows the female Blackbird appearence in contrast to the male specimen appearing in the taxobox.
- Articles this image appears in
- Blackbird
- Creator
- User:Dschwen
- Support Edit 2 as nominator — Dschwen 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of contrast. Try the Photoshop command Image/Adjust/Autolevels for a major improvement in contrast - Adrian Pingstone 12:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The OOF items in the foreground are mighty distracting. --Bridgecross 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, what can you expect from a 150 EUR russian mirror telescope? Circular bokeh! :-) Anyway, I tried to adress both points with an edit. --Dschwen 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Tech question: Are you using the telescope as a prime lens, or in front of a prime? --Janke | Talk 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Prime lens on a 5D. I have an adapter from T2 to EOS mount. --Dschwen 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow 5D! Your own? --Fir0002 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've been contemplating that investment for quite some time, and I made it a combined ph.D. and wedding present to myself :-) --Dschwen 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Contrats on that mate. Getting the Camera that is ; ) -Fcb981 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've been contemplating that investment for quite some time, and I made it a combined ph.D. and wedding present to myself :-) --Dschwen 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow 5D! Your own? --Fir0002 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Prime lens on a 5D. I have an adapter from T2 to EOS mount. --Dschwen 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Tech question: Are you using the telescope as a prime lens, or in front of a prime? --Janke | Talk 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, what can you expect from a 150 EUR russian mirror telescope? Circular bokeh! :-) Anyway, I tried to adress both points with an edit. --Dschwen 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose due to the fuzzy object in front of the bird. — The Storm Surfer 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 3 A little better. 8thstar 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh, so I fix one thing and people come up with another reason? Come on, it's not like that straw is in front of the birds head. What is it obscuring? --Dschwen 07:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 1. To my eyes the photo looks a hundred times better at full size than in thumbnail. The straw in the foreground is basically transparent. Otherwise it looks great, with lovely detail. Pstuart84 Talk 09:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support (edit 2, edit 3 is also OK with me) per above. A natural habitat is bound to have some obscuring stuff... --Janke | Talk 09:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd support this - it's a very natural shot, well resolved etc - but you've overcooked the contrast on your revision and blown some subtle detail. It just needed a *small* adjustment to counteract the lack of contrast in your cheapo lens ;) mikaultalk 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are completely right. Edit1 was over the top. I redid it with moderation and additionally put a lot more work into finetuning the mask separating the foreground from the blurred bg. --Dschwen 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- proposal I would support this with the yellow obstructing blade of grass cloned out. But I would only bother to spend the time to clone it out if people wouldn't vote against it because of that cloning. Anyone think that modification is a particularly good or bad idea?Debivort 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea, I love the picture but that yellow straw kills me. Leave the rest of the blurred foreground, though. Enuja 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know, doctoring the picture like that seems a little dirty to me. The Storm Surfer 23:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 2, for reasons stated above. I would probably support a decently cloned version, if it came to it, but I really don't have a problem with the OOF grasses; they seem perfectly appropriate to the subject to me. mikaultalk 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit2 or Edit3 - It was harder to do than I expected, but here is a version in which the most annoying grass blade has been cloned out. Debivort 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support edit 3 I do like this image with the alterations as noted --Newton2 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- 'Support Edit 3. I'm a huge fan. The bird looks like she (he?) is staring at you, the feathers are fantastically clear, and the remaining blurry stems and background give context. Enuja 00:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)