Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brown pelican

Brown Pelican

Another great image from Nature's Pic's. A mid flight shot is very hard to get, and a perfectly focused one like this is exceptional.

Nominate and Support --Fir0002 08:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is incredible. Little uglier than ours though. --liquidGhoul 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent. Ugly bird though. --Billpg 09:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great shot.--Melburnian 09:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its a good pic, but when i first saw it the first thing i noticed was a kind of weird light glow around the bird, i was just wondering what it actually is?? Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 10:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it, do you see it at full size? --liquidGhoul 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Renata 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this version, it's suffering from severe shadow/highlight haloing. Would support a version that hasn't been so heavily photoshopped, if we can get hold of the original. --Yummifruitbat 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as Yummifruitbat. I've noticed in just about all of this contributor's images that the shadow detail has been overcooked. Shadows appear too bright and false. Otherwise I would support it, but it just doesn't look natural to me - something pretty important in a nature photo. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Fir0002. Stevage 12:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Wonderful picture, but is it just me or is there a glow about outside of the wings?? HighInBC 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a very nice image, but the halo around the bird is a bit distracting. Could be due to shadow/highlight carelessness, but looks more like what you get when you aren't careful about local contrast enhancement. -- Moondigger 15:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Beautiful Imaninjapirate 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per moondigger--Vircabutar 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded the original image Nautre's Pic's sent me. The image I initially uploaded I applied some contrasting as I felt the original a little flat. But anyway, see what you think - the "halo" may not be as visible in the original. --Fir0002 22:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, the 'original' is quite flat, but I don't believe that it is straight out of the camera. As I mentioned before, the shadows appear artificially lifted (a little is fine, but too much is a Bad Thing) and contrast is lacking (in both copies). I admit that shadows are not as strong towards sunset (and this image has sunset-like light), but it still doesn't look like it should, and as I mentioned also, I have noticed other images by this contributor that exhibit this issue, so I don't think that it is my imagination. Ah well, post processing is always a very subjective exercise, but I think he does need to be a bit more careful of the result. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 — Very nice photo, and very difficult to capture with such precision. ♠ SG →Talk 22:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not as good as the goose pic. The edit is exagerated. --Dschwen 02:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. This photo is amazing except for the haloing, but I think the exceptional quality makes up for that. --Tewy 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . Quite close, though. Raven4x4x 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]