Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish

Reason: The image adds value to the articles It is a very interesting action shot, which shows the birds and their behavior.
Articles this image appears in: Double-crested Cormorant Cormorant
Creator: Mbz1 edit by user: Lycaon

Support both as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but it's too unsharp and has blown highlights. Encyclopaedic, but to me not visually pleasing or stunning. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 17:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice capture, but the left side bird is cut off which doesn't really help the composition. Its also just not that sharp, as mentioned above. Would be a different story if the bird mostly filled the frame and was sharper. I know it isn't easy to get a shot such as that, but bird photography standards are quite high on Wikipedia. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose per above. Clegs (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Clegs, that you added the word "Regretful" to your oppose!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Oppose It's quite a good action shot, marred by some issues such as softness and one of the birds being partially out of frame. The meta data suggests it was taken at 300mm, so the lens was zoomed in. I have learnt that for shots like this, it is best to keep fairly wide, camera shake is reduced and you can easily crop down to frame the important detail. Zoom in and you get poor shaprness and action can slip out of frame. This taken as a wide shot and cropped to a 3:1 ratio would have being great. Capital photographer (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too for your Regretful Oppose and for advise, Capital photographer. I do not think I could have used your advise in that particular situation. First a cormorant got a fish and he was relatively far, so I zoomed my lens. Then two other cormorants came and all of them started to run and to fly in my direction. There was no time to zoom lens out, simply no time and although I do agree that Wikipedia FP has many beautiful and amazing images of the birds and few very, very nice images of birds in flight, none of them shows the kind of action I captured, not even close. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the strengths of this picture are that it manages to capture the dynamic action brilliantly, and it tells an exceedingly good story. These are almost enough to outweigh the faults listed, and I won't oppose, but rules are rules I suppose. Edit 1 addresses compositional issues as the original looks a bit untidy on first glance. Pity. Motmit (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]