Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nictitating Membrane

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 11:08:15 (UTC)

Reason: I guess this isn't the typical FPC. Although it's not very large, it meets the size requirements, and I think it's extremely encyclopedic and illustrative of a fleeting and small subject in the wild. (I'm a contributor at Commons-FP, and saw the talk page request for more participation here, so here I am!)
Articles in which this image appears: Nictitating membrane, Bird vision, Bird, Blink, Masked Lapwing
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: 99of9

Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (to be clear, I now prefer edit 1) --99of9 (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Final frame is noticeably blurry. Would it be possible to sharpen it or replace it with a less blurry frame? Kaldari (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll have a go. There is only one alternative capture, and the head had a slightly different tilt, so that one will require perspective correction. This one could be digitally sharpened of course. 99of9 (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think edit 1 improves this (and a couple of other things I noticed). 99of9 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support A picture of a bird yea, but not JAFP of a bird! Really cool, we need more pictures like this. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. This is a very valuable sequence; the timing is impressive, and the result is a world of difference from the other images in commons:Category:Nictitating membrane. Obviously cropping this tightly results in a considerable sacrifice of resolution and there may be other tiny (but understandable) technical issues, but on balance those things are outweighed. Chick Bowen 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but if you removed the reflection from the third, why not remove it from the first also? Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. Mainly because I didn't notice it. Done. --99of9 (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly. Thanks for nom'ing here. upstate NYer 12:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, prefer edit 1. Excellent EV. --Avenue (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the original (as it is at Nictitating membrane) it seems livelier: both the skin and reflection of sun in eye.TehGrauniad (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 only. Glare is undesirable. Jujutacular ^talk 14:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the original as the edit makes the rich yellow look washed out, however the glare is not acceptable. I wonder if the glare could be removed with the rich colours retained. – SMasters (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The third frame of the original had a redder hue than the other two frames. I presume this is what you mean by "rich yellow". I diminished the magenta component in that frame, so that it was equal to that of the other frames. In this case I think consistency is the most important factor. --99of9 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could use a few more comments on the edit. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nudge At the moment it stands at 4:2 in favour of the edit (amongst those who've made their preference explicit). 99of9 (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]