Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raven on Branch.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2021 at 16:58:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Corvidae (Crows, Jays and Magpies)
Info created by Lambda - uploaded by Lambda - nominated by Lambda -- Lambda (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Support This is my first photo that may be featured picture worthy; in fact, my first photo that I have felt was worth uploading to Commons. As I'm new to this, I'd especially appreciate any constructive criticism. -- Lambda (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Thanks for having a go here. I would try submitting images to QI and see how they get on. Compare the sharpness of your images , especially the eye and the feathers, with other bird FPs. Watch some youtube videos on photographing black birds (the most difficult) - here you need to lighten shadows. Try to get a coloured background, not a white one. Try to avoid having stuff in the foreground that is out of focus. Try to keep ISO down to 800. Most important, think carefully about the composition, so here we might expect to see more of the bird in the frame. I assume you were using a tripod as 1/640 sec with an 800m lens is no good handheld. Easier to experiment with hand holding (300/400mm lens) then you can play with the composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for the excellent critique! I've posted this photo in a few places and this is the best critique I've gotten so far. The one major issue I had noticed was the ISO; it's grainy in the shadows, which means that I probably can't bring the shadows up too much without making the grain even more prominent. I was actually shooting handheld, the lens has image stabilization which seems to work pretty well, though I don't know how far I can push the shutter speed before the image stabilization doesn't help; this is a big lens to shoot handheld, though quite light for an 800. 800 was too much for this shot, you're right; I was finding it hard to fit the whole bird into the frame. I was able to do so in some other shots from other angles, but I didn't think any of them had come out quite as well as this one. Here's a gallery of a few of the other shots and edits. I preferred the less colorful background of this image to the brighter colors of some of the others, as I feel like the colors pull the eye away from the textures of the ravens feathers; for artistic purposes, I prefer the monochrome versions, though for Commons I think the color image is more informative. On sharpness, I've seen featured images that are sharper, and other that are less sharp, like the Jubilee and Munin photo File:Jubilee and Munin, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30.jpg, though that's more interesting for other reasons, the pose. Thanks for the comments, I will definitely work on getting the ISO and shutter speed dialed in correctly, shorter lenses or shooting from further back, and trying to get the sharpness and shadows up a bit. Lambda (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Hi! To clarify, QI means Commons:Quality images. Since this is your first upload, you probably haven't heard about it yet. Going straight to FPC is like jumping in at the deep end the first time you're in a pool. :-) Most new users start nominating at Commons:Quality images candidates to get proper feedback about what is expected on Commons in general. There is also Commons:Photography critiques for more tips about your photos. Welcome to Commons! --Cart (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the clarifications and pointers! I had considered going to Commons:Quality images first, but looking at some of the other featured images thought this one might have something to offer, and I might get some better feedback if not, shoot too low and I might not get enough criticism. I'm pretty happy with the criticism I'm getting so far, but yeah, I'll definitely try out the QI process and photography critiques, I hadn't found that page yet. Lambda (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Glad you liked it. However, FPC is not meant to be a place to get advice and critique, you are just getting the good treatment because you are new. ;-) The rest of us are expected to present our very best pictures, all good and ready, for a thumbs up or down, just so you know for future nominations. --Cart (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Understood; I wasn't just coming here for critique, after comparing to the other featured pictures in the same section, I considered it higher technical quality (at least in sharpness and resolution) than the Jubilee and Munin photo mentioned above, while a more interesting angle and composition than some of the profile views, so I also did think it was worthy of nomination, but because I am new, made sure to mention that to get more detailed critique if not. I'm now learning more about what's being looked for, and I've learned that the critique page exists, so I'll be sure to check there in the future if I'm just looking for critique. Lambda (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Charles --Commonists 18:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Brought shadows up and highlights down to address a few of the comments by Charlesjsharp. Sharpened slightly, and applied de-noise to reduce the high-ISO noise, which reduces the sharpness a bit. Could remove the de-noise to get some sharpness back. Lambda (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Good idea, but FPs of birds nowadays have individually sharp feathers. It's a very high bar to clear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the critique. I had nominated based on comparing with the existing images in its section in the FP gallery, and found it at least as sharp as Jubilee and Munin, which was featured despite concerns about its sharpness. That image is more entertaining, but I was thinking this one is a nice in between, of a more interesting visual perspective than the profiles of many of the other featured pictures in the gallery, while sharper and less visually cluttered than the Jubilee and Munin pic. However, I understand if in-between doesn't work well for FP; that it should either be more entertaining or visually interesting, or more sharp, to qualify. Is that how you're thinking about it? Lambda (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just a note, looking at this image (adding to the above): the file is very small for its size. Just 1.5 mb. There's a lot of black and white here, so it wouldn't be very large, but 1.5 MB suggests compression. Are you working with a RAW file and processing that? — Rhododendrites talk | 04:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- I was shooting in JPEG at the highest quality, not RAW. I may have been able to eke a bit more out of the shadows if I were shooting in RAW. The file size dropped substantially after applying the denoise filter, not surprisingly; I'll bet it would go back up again if I dropped that filter. I'm processing using Darktable, which does non-destructive processing on the original JPEG, so I shouldn't be losing anything on each edit, but I am starting out with JPEG so I don't have quite as much headroom on dynamic range as I would if I were shooting RAW. Lambda (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Lambda, the picture you're citing was featured partly because of the humorous relationship between the two ravens, which this photo doesn't have. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I meant when saying "that image is more entertaining." I personally think this image is more visually interesting than some of the profile headshots which are featured, but it doesn't have quite the same humor value. Lambda (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination With three oppose votes and no support, and not enough detail in the original to bring out the requested detail, I'm going to withdraw this. Lambda (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
