.jpg)
- Reason
- Encyclopaedic, quality shot.
- Articles this image appears in
- Greater Yellowlegs
- Creator
- Mike Baird ( bairdphotos.com)
- Support as nominator Samsara ( FA • FP) 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I really love the first one, it is crisp, well framed and a great habitat shot. The second is not of the same quality, I would much rather the bird facing the camera slightly. -- liquidGhoul ( talk) 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Support the first one. It is good image. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support first Very crisp. The second one just seems more bland. Spencer T♦ C 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1, Weak Oppose Alternative 1. Nice shot - and must have been hard to get considering the focal length that was necessary. That said I feel a bit cheated quality wise as coming from a Mk III and a sensational lens it should have been a lot sharper - particularly Alt 1 which is below standards IMO. I suspect the degradation occured during some kind of NR as it was shot at ISO 800. Might be worth asking for an original... -- Fir0002 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Fir0002's explanations. H92110 ( talk) 15:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support any de Bivort 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support any well done. — αἰτίας • discussion• 11:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Alternitive 1, weak support others. Very well done. Juliancolton ( Talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support original, weak oppose alternatives 1 & 2 The original is the most aesthetically pleasing and it shows the most detail. нмŵוτн τ 02:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Greater Yellowlegs2.jpg -- John254 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- Encyclopaedic, quality shot.
- Articles this image appears in
- Greater Yellowlegs
- Creator
- Mike Baird ( bairdphotos.com)
- Support as nominator Samsara ( FA • FP) 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support I really love the first one, it is crisp, well framed and a great habitat shot. The second is not of the same quality, I would much rather the bird facing the camera slightly. -- liquidGhoul ( talk) 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Support the first one. It is good image. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 20:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support first Very crisp. The second one just seems more bland. Spencer T♦ C 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1, Weak Oppose Alternative 1. Nice shot - and must have been hard to get considering the focal length that was necessary. That said I feel a bit cheated quality wise as coming from a Mk III and a sensational lens it should have been a lot sharper - particularly Alt 1 which is below standards IMO. I suspect the degradation occured during some kind of NR as it was shot at ISO 800. Might be worth asking for an original... -- Fir0002 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Fir0002's explanations. H92110 ( talk) 15:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support any de Bivort 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support any well done. — αἰτίας • discussion• 11:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Alternitive 1, weak support others. Very well done. Juliancolton ( Talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support original, weak oppose alternatives 1 & 2 The original is the most aesthetically pleasing and it shows the most detail. нмŵוτн τ 02:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Greater Yellowlegs2.jpg -- John254 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)