Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Strepera fuliginosa 2.jpg

Black Currawong

Reason: Complete plumage coverage between the two images in the article. High quality. Might need a square crop.
Articles this image appears in: Black Currawong, Currawong
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality and EV. Nice DOF --Muhammad(talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not quite the best contrast (background is darkest near the bird's head), but good focus and DOF. Durova²⁸⁸ 21:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb encyclopedia shot. Would have ideally had a lighter b/g but no biggie. --mikaul^talk 09:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C 10:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'll go against the trend, but the head is slightly blurred, which is where focus traditionally should be best. Wasn't sure if it was a focus/DOF issue, as body is well focused, but looking at metadata f5.6 should have been enough, especially given the angle. However this was taken at 1/25s so it's probably a motion blur from the bird moving its head. These birds are common enough that we can probably expect better, especially given the less than ideal surroundings. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the head, beak is that bad. Obviously pushing it on light level though. Is File:Strepera fuliginosa 1.jpg any better for you? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably more the sort of clarity I was thinking about on the head. Perhaps it is just DOF, because that one goes rapidly OOF with the feet quite soft, despite them not appearing to be that far out of the plane of the head (though that one is f5 which would also have an impact). FWIW I think the second one comes out better in terms of composition as well in terms of the overall surroundings - much cleaner - but I wouldn't really support it either with the feet and missing tail. As I say above I think these birds are common enough that we can expect something pretty good (difficulty in capturing the blackness well notwithstanding). --jjron (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jjron. I too think this bird is common enough that we can insist upon near-perfection. Something like the taxobox image would be better in terms of composition. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Strepera fuliginosa 2.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]