Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Turdus Merula female: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:13, 16 April 2007

A young female Blackbird (Turdus Merula)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose The OOF items in the foreground are mighty distracting. --Bridgecross 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - Prime lens on a 5D. I have an adapter from T2 to EOS mount. --Dschwen 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wow 5D! Your own? --Fir0002 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        Contrats on that mate. Getting the Camera that is ; ) -Fcb981 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the fuzzy object in front of the bird. — The Storm Surfer 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 3 A little better. ^8thstar 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ;) mikaul^talk 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't know, doctoring the picture like that seems a little dirty to me. The Storm Surfer 23:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 2, for reasons stated above. I will also ~~would probably~~ support ~~a decently cloned version, if it came to it,~~ edit 3 but I really don't have a problem with the OOF grasses; they seem perfectly appropriate to the subject to me. mikaul^talk 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Weak Support edit 3 I do like this image with the alterations as noted --New t on2 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 3. I'm a huge fan. The bird looks like she 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)[reply]

Err, I just now looked at the page. You are absolutely and completely sure that this is Turdus merula, right? Enuja 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for an opinion was placed at WP:BIRD. I have to say it looks like a young Blackbird to me. Sexual dimorphism in plumage is fairly common in birds. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support original, edit2, edit3. Foreground grass is fine, adds to sense of depth, obscures nothing --AGoon 13:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'comment caption should be Turdus merula not Turdus Merula. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 :Err, I just now looked at the page.  You are absolutely and completely sure that this is ''Turdus merula'', right? [[User:Enuja|Enuja]] 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 :*A request for an opinion was placed at [[WP:BIRD]]. I have to say it looks like a young Blackbird to me. [[Sexual dimorphism]] in plumage is fairly common in birds. [[User:Sabine's Sunbird|Sabine's Sunbird]]  [[User talk:Sabine's Sunbird|<span style="color:#008000;">talk</span>]] 07:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Support''' original, edit2, edit3.  Foreground grass is fine, adds to sense of depth, obscures nothing --[[User:AGoon|AGoon]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 {{-}}
 *'''comment'' caption should be ''Turdus merula'' not ''Turdus Merula''. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 11:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 <noinclude>[[Category:Featured picture nominations]] [[Category:Featured picture nominations/April 2007]]</noinclude>