Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Linnaeus 1766).jpg

File:Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Linnaeus 1766).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2010 at 00:03:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Linnaeus 1766).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Linnaeus 1766).jpg

•  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support WoW... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Strong support Fantastic! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Great!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Great shot but low contrast. Look at the histogramm, there is still potential to enforce the shadows --Simonizer (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Simonizer, the low contrast is the contrast given by the D 300. I tried to take a higher contrast. But I saw: the trees are now very dark and the Bald Eagle is no longer the principal actor. Therefore I decided to keep the low contrast. I think: the Bald Eagle shall be the principal actor. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing! -- Ra'ike T C 07:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Parfait! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Zoo photo. Shows in the damaged primary feathers on the right wing. - MPF (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question What's wrong with photos of animals in zoos, so long as we identify them as such? Specifically, how is it less educational if the bird is flying in a zoo environment? Steven Walling 18:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Question Why so tight crop? —kallerna™ 11:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Kallerna and Steven Walling, the Bald Eagle flies with high speed, there ist no time to look for large crops on every side of the image. I needed the time to put the metering mode spot on the face of the flying Bald Eagle. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe you should do bit cloning to add space? Good pic anyways. —kallerna™ 14:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Crop is too tight and it's pretty blurry around the wing tips. Steven Walling 18:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Steven Walling, the Bald Eagle has a wingspan of up to 2.44 m (96 in), females are about 25 percent larger than males. I used the "AF-S Micro Nikkor 60 mm 1:2,8 G ED" and made the image with f/2.8, ISO 200, with the exposure time 1/1,600 sec (0.000625 sec) and with the metering mode spot on the face of the Bald Eagle. The f/2.8 has the best depth of field, but we see: this dept of field ist not large enough for a wingspan of up to 2.44 m. This is the reason of the fuzziness at the ends of the wings. Sorry, there is no way to enlarge the dept of field. I think a wide-angel lens is not the right decision. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you may be making a mistake there. f/2.8 would give you the shallowest DOF possible with your lens. --Muhammad (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

which is true of course. But with f2.8 you will have the shortest possible shutter time which would be good to avoid motion blur (and wings mostly move quite fast). But I really don't get the depth of field addiction which people here seem to have. Amada44 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Great capture IMO. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Amada44 (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Based on the image... and Michael Gäbler's explanations. --Cayambe (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Avenue (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! --Dellex (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Very good shot - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment - Impressive photo! I would gladly support if the framing were not so tight. Looking at the dimensions of the image, I suppose the original has some more space around the bird. You could also try to improve the contrast, like Simonizer suggested. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Neutral This is an impressive photo, but the Depth of Field is too shallow for a captive bird. How does it compare to other flying bird featured pictures? here, here, here, and here. -- Ram-Man 23:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --ianaré (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --патриот8790 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good shot, but not featured for me. Low details, distrаcting background, light (the head in shadow) and composition are not perfect too . --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds