Renominated image as was added late to
this nomination and although did gain some support, many voters did not respecify their vote. So I've renominated it seperately.
Weak support. The sky is a little noisy, and the highlights are almost blown, but both are acceptable (barely) by my personal standards. As for redundancy, it looks like a completely different species than Fir's image so that doesn't seem to be a problem either.--
Andrew c05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, why not. There still is a lot of feather structure in the light parts and the bird was bright, just as the fish scales below were probably bright. And yes, Fir, you are biased, as am I, and thus I prefer this picture which has a more natural setting. --
Dschwen18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment No offense, but the bird "droppings" in the first gull FP was the first thing in that picture to get my attention, not the bird itself. This is strikingly different. --
293.xx.xxx.xx02:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Fir0002's
image appears to be a different species (the beak is noticably smaller and is a different color, the plumage pattern is different, the relative size of the feet are different and the coloration of the feet is different).. and, Fir000w's picture has duller coloration. I'm not sure what's better, piles of bird droppings or concrete.. also, I don't agree that the highlights are blown on this nominee, it is a white bird and what is pure white but.. a highlight?
drumguy8800CT00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Renominated image as was added late to
this nomination and although did gain some support, many voters did not respecify their vote. So I've renominated it seperately.
Weak support. The sky is a little noisy, and the highlights are almost blown, but both are acceptable (barely) by my personal standards. As for redundancy, it looks like a completely different species than Fir's image so that doesn't seem to be a problem either.--
Andrew c05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, why not. There still is a lot of feather structure in the light parts and the bird was bright, just as the fish scales below were probably bright. And yes, Fir, you are biased, as am I, and thus I prefer this picture which has a more natural setting. --
Dschwen18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment No offense, but the bird "droppings" in the first gull FP was the first thing in that picture to get my attention, not the bird itself. This is strikingly different. --
293.xx.xxx.xx02:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Fir0002's
image appears to be a different species (the beak is noticably smaller and is a different color, the plumage pattern is different, the relative size of the feet are different and the coloration of the feet is different).. and, Fir000w's picture has duller coloration. I'm not sure what's better, piles of bird droppings or concrete.. also, I don't agree that the highlights are blown on this nominee, it is a white bird and what is pure white but.. a highlight?
drumguy8800CT00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)reply