Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Superb fairy wrens mark 2.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image:Superb fairy wrens mark 2.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 10:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) This is a completely different image than the original, I re-stitched and edited it from scratch. In this version the stitching is completely flawless and I have made several other improvments, on the original image large parts of the males face were blue blown and there was some fringing on the face of the male - I have rectified both of those things along with it being a neater and cleaner image than the old one regarding the unfeathered lines of filtering running across the birds (I don't think anyone noticed that last time), the BG is better and the whole image is crisper (although I haven't sharpened it) and slightly warmer.[reply]
  •  Support --Benjamint444 10:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Winiar✉ 13:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Because I don't like the colours tones (the left bird has really weird blues) and find the lighting flat (flash again ?). I also strongly oppose image manipulations which change the subject too much as it's the case here. It's like I put an Eiffel Tower next to a Statue of Liberty. I would probably be a good looking picture, but it would make no sense. Benh 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see your point of view about "It's like I put an Eiffel Tower next to a Statue of Liberty." but an Eiffel Tower next to a Statue of Liberty is impossible whereas it's quite possible for these birds to perch together. The color is real, the only thing I have done is an Apply image adjustment layer and stroked in some red contrast to bring it back from being blue blown, that doesn't change the colour and the detail is real.--Benjamint444 23:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are right, the images I found on the net show the same "odd" blue. As for the manipulation thing, my exemple was a rather extreme one, but let's take one more appropriate : what about if I stick a en:George_W._Bush shaking a hand next to a en:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad shaking a hand and photoshop them a bit so they shake each others hand ? Wouldn't be impossible, but very unlikely to happen. Sometimes, a picture is great because of the "instant" it catches. Here we know this instant is "fake", which take away a lot of its charm. Benh 15:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is some other photos of the species, unfortunately all of the images of males are mine except one.cyaneus--Benjamint444 23:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - This is a beatiful picture and would certainly qualify if it were a single shot. But I also feel that this kind of manipulation shouln't be encouraged in nature pictures. Is really possible, or common, for these birds to perch together? Probably yes but we really don't know until someone gets a straight photo of it. Alvesgaspar 12:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Perhaps not as unlikely as I too originally thought, see [1], [2] --Tony Wills 11:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Oppose As above. Great job on the stitching though. --Digon3 14:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose partly because of the manipulation. I have no objection in principle, as it's been disclosed, but because it's very easy to conjoin images in this way it makes it harder - much harder - to show that such an image is really the best that Commons has to offer. Individual bird images are more likely to be successful here. But I'm not happy with the frontal flash, anyway. Did you buy that angle-backet that I suggested for the flash gun, by the way? :) --MichaelMaggs 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet, I have done some research about them though, I want to get a new flash soon anyway so I'll wait and make sure they're compatable. --Benjamint444 10:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Support This composition follows the long standing tradition and practice of bird illustrators eg Category:NAUMANN or Category:The_Birds_of_America in putting together birds into one frame for illustrative purposes. The difference is one of quality, this has a high degree of photo realism, something not achievable by those illustrators of old.
The image is now clearly described as being a composite, there is no excuse for people mis-using it or being confused about it. If commons accepts composite images, edited videos, and edited or multi-tracked sound files then this image must be accepted as valid, and assessed on its qualities.
FP highlights quality images with a bit of 'wow', there is no requirement that they be photographs straight from a camera (Merges from focus bracketed images which show otherwise unobtainable DOF, are accepted as FP. Stitched panoramas are accepted that show otherwise unobtainable resolution. Composite images are accepted/opposed that show otherwise unobtainable composition?)
I should add that I don't particularly like composite images, but can't justify opposing this on quality or 'wow' factor appeal. Perhaps FP just needs a category along side 'non photographic' and 'animated' images, for 'composite' images. --Tony Wills 11:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral. Nice composition. I regret the original pictures are not clearly cited in the image description. I guess the left bird comes from a wider version of Image:Superb_blue_Wren1.jpg but where does the right bird come from? Moreover, if the image is the composition of two pictures, what is the exact meaning of the EXIF metadata ? Finally, the resolution does not meet the 2 Mpixel requirement. — Xavier, 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 2MP requirement, only a guideline --Tony Wills 11:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose While I agree with Tony Wills (amazing that I would even consider that, considering my stated bias against manipulated images), this image is below the resolution guidelines and there are no mitigating reason stated. -- Ram-Man 05:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution is in the ball park of the guidelines, the file is 4 times bigger and the image sharper than the original nomination. --Tony Wills 11:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 5 support, 1 neutral, 5 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 19:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Superb_fairy_wrens_mark_2.jpg&oldid=347424903"