Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/meadowpippit

Meadow Pipit

**Edited version**:Scaled, noise reduced, sharpened version

Reason: Quite a nice shot of a sometimes elusive bird. At Peer Review, Noodle snacks created a much better (I think) edited version of this photo, which is also shown here. The original was taken on a very, very dull day (the English summer has been awful) against a background of limestone quarry cliffs - hence the high ISO, as otherwise would have been too dark/blurry).
Articles this image appears in: Meadow Pipit
Creator: Seahamlass

Support as nominator -- Seahamlass 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a bad shot, but it's quite noisy even in the edited version and doesn't have the level of detail of most FP bird shots.--ragesoss (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose edit 2, which has severe artifacts.--ragesoss (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no such thing as lossless noise removal. If you invent it, you can be a rich man. If you tell me what exactly to you is an artefact in the image, maybe I can help you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The entire edit 2 image looks posterized in little blotches; look at the bird's foot on the branch at full resolution, for example. I simply don't think any amount of editing is going to make this one FP material.--ragesoss (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, let me know what you think of the previous version [1] - better or worse? The fact remains that if this image is scaled down to the minimum required, it's becomes perfectly acceptable in terms of noise. I can't help feeling that you're punishing Seahamlass for uploading an image of high resolution, something that we usually encourage. (Not just you, other people also don't seem to take size into account in what I perceive to be the right way...) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's about the same. I disagree that the scaled-down version is FP quality (and I agree with the principle that we shouldn't punish images for being uploaded in large sizes that reveal flaws, if they have the detail and quality at appropriate sizes). Compare the level of detail in the feathers and claws in this FP candidate, which has strong support and rightly so. It's only 1024 pixels, but those pixels show way more detail than even the full-size version of this. For this image, even the 1024 thumbnail is really noisy to the point of lost detail, and as you point out, any attempt to smooth out the noise means even more lost detail. It was taken on a Canon 40D at 800 ISO and the background is brighter than the subject, with auto exposure and no exposure bias (which probably means the subject was underexposed and brightened afterwards); considering all that, the shot came out great. --ragesoss (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit. As far as i can see it is pretty easy to find featured bird shots less detailed than this eg Image:Red-whiskered Bulbul-web.jpg, Image:Netta rufina m2.jpg or Image:Willy wag tail.jpg Noodle snacks (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see a noise reduced version that isn't scaled down. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support well constructed & detailed Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They're both too noisy, unfortunately. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose original and edits 1 & 2. The picture falls well below the standard established for bird featured pictures. Great composition and a nice thumbnail, but low image quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Edit 2 added: noise reduction at full resolution. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment- I'm worried about the very yellow cast the plumage has. Other pictures of this bird show much lighter undersides. pschemp | talk 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can find references to support either colour, both print and online. No sex dimorphism, but possibly seasonal or geographic variation or polymorphism? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Papa Lima Whiskey for the updated version. I like it! The colour hasn't been altered on the bird, despite the above concerns, some birds are just naturally more yellowish than others. (See the pipit pic at birdwatching.co.uk for another yellowish example.) -- Seahamlass 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, then, works for me.pschemp | talk 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2 - My concerns have been allayed. Composition is nice and you can see individual feathers. Couldn't ask for more details. pschemp | talk 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. As mentioned above, it's a nice shot, but the noise is just too bad in the original and edits 1 and 2 lose a lot of detail. NauticaShad es 01:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the image's defense, it is almost 2k pixels high, which is twice the minimum required by the criteria. (It's 2.4k wide, but I'll go with height because that seems to be the encyclopaedically relevant dimension in this image). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I examined this image with the width being 1000px (the minimum to pass the requirements), and I found that the noise is still quite visible. NauticaShad es 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Noise/quality issues --Fir0002 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Try to fix the quality issues listed above, then I think the majority of us will support. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I think enough effort has been poured into that. If you can't, among the proposed versions, find one that you like, then I doubt there'll ever be a version of this exact photo (as opposed to a lucky-as-hell retake in better light) to please you. With that, I'll carefully place the grail on the floor here, and wait for someone with access to more sophisticated noise removal software than myself to prove me wrong. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted . --John254 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]