Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/New Holland
File:New Holland Preening.jpg
- Reason
- Technically good, interesting pose clearly showing entire bird.
- Articles this image appears in
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Holland_Honeyeater
- Creator
- Flying Freddy
- Support as nominator --Flying Freddy (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor lighting. Needed faster exposure and fill light - much of the background is disturbingly blown to pure white - Peripitus (Talk) 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I disagree, the blown background is irrelevant to the subject except to isolate from the otherwise cluttered foliage, Uploaded alternatives without such white backgrounds, prefer alt 1. - Flying Freddy (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- The blown background looks weird and unnatural when it occupies such a large part of the image. While I like the composition and light for alt2 I think it might be affected by camera shake and it's not as good a species illustration as File:Phylidonyris_novaehollandiae_Bruny_Island.jpg (nominated somewhere else here ?) For such a common species we should expect to promote a tack sharp and well lit image - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
OpposeSorry, blown whites are a problem at FPC unless the area affected is really minimal. Excellent shot of the bird; please come back with another. DurovaCharge! 06:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)- On second thought, support alt 2. The page cache must not have purged yet; didn't see the new submissions until after hitting save. Better background; small but not too small. DurovaCharge! 06:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Questions Can we sort out what happened with the flash in these images? ISO varies from 160 to 400, but flash fired in all of them according to EXIF data (and all with 1/200 seconds exposure). Alt 1 has high noise ratio for an ISO 200 with this camera (Nikon D80). How much sharpening and exposure correction has been applied? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment On all images on board flash was used. As the camera will only sync with the onboard flash down to 1/200 that was set (camera was on tripod for all shots so motion blur was unlikely), then aperture set as appropriate for DOF and sharpness. Actual exposure was controlled to a ballpark figure by adjusting iso to within about half a stop of correct as measuerd my camera, then used flash as fill. As such exposure correction would've been at most maybe half a stop. I think the high noise to signal ratio comes from shooting in raw, when shot in .jpg I believe NR is automatically applied which sacrifices detail. Frankly noise is a non issue to my eyes in any of these shots as compared to File:Phylidonyris_novaehollandiae_Bruny_Island.jpg for instance. Sharpening was applied in photoshop as is the norm with 90% of images submitted here, it was kept to a minumum as downsampling raised apparent sharpness. - Flying Freddy (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- My opinion, forget the fill (since you can't get above 1/200th) and just wait until you get one sitting in the sun. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment On all images on board flash was used. As the camera will only sync with the onboard flash down to 1/200 that was set (camera was on tripod for all shots so motion blur was unlikely), then aperture set as appropriate for DOF and sharpness. Actual exposure was controlled to a ballpark figure by adjusting iso to within about half a stop of correct as measuerd my camera, then used flash as fill. As such exposure correction would've been at most maybe half a stop. I think the high noise to signal ratio comes from shooting in raw, when shot in .jpg I believe NR is automatically applied which sacrifices detail. Frankly noise is a non issue to my eyes in any of these shots as compared to File:Phylidonyris_novaehollandiae_Bruny_Island.jpg for instance. Sharpening was applied in photoshop as is the norm with 90% of images submitted here, it was kept to a minumum as downsampling raised apparent sharpness. - Flying Freddy (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose all - just. I don't see the "blown highlights" of the original submission as a big technical problem, but the white background makes the composition displeasing to my eye - bright background and dark foreground doesn't work too well. There's also what looks like sharpened blur. In alt2, the blur on the leaves (motion blur? boku? hard to tell) is just slightly too distracting. It's close though. Stevage 04:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't think we can accept these, if only to remain consistent with previous decisions. The resolution on subject is borderline for each of these images; orig has unfortunate composition (tail on branch); personally I'm not too outspoken about blown highlights. Alt 1 has high noise levels. Alt 2 suffers from some motion blur (particularly on the branch and feet - windy? would also explain lack of sharpness on breast feathers). If the good features from all these images had come together in one image, it doubtless would have made it, especially since I'm not sure (didn't check) if we have an FP that shows a bird attending to its wing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)