 |
 |
 |
- Reason
- Fairly uncommon in my state, "pops" nicely from the background, good quality
- Articles this image appears in
- Musk Lorikeet, True parrots
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator -- Noodle snacks ( talk) 12:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice photograph, I especially like the background. Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 14:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not thrilled with the harsh lighting. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose due to harsh lighting. Cacophony ( talk) 16:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose harsh artificial lighting, while artificial lighting would have been necessary to take this shot, a lower flash intensity and use of diffuser would be needed to produce softer light
Capital photographer (
talk)
08:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I also managed to get another one when there was some light about. However I have uploaded an alternate version with natural light. Noodle snacks ( talk) 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We're getting there. Now if that alternate showed the tail as well as the rest, I would support it. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 10:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The first, shot at 1/200, is much crisper than the second shot at 1/80. I don't mind the flash as much as other people seem to, but it is true it changes the colors, and might not be ideal for an encyclopedia article. Since you have a color reference file, you could tone down and adjust the colors to match the reference image. I did something quick in 'Image:Musk Lorikeet edit.jpg' (
sorry, not sure how to linkadded). I will delete it in a few days, since these changes should be done on the original full resolution, pre-sharpened, raw file. Tomfriedel ( talk) 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC) - Oppose. In addition to the lighting, the first shot (and edit) have some pretty noticable jpeg artifacts, especially around the edges of the bird. The alternate is close, but the combination of composition and detail just don't quite add up to Featured-level quality.-- ragesoss ( talk) 17:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose all. None appear to be particularly well composed or otherwise great pictures. Becky Sayles ( talk) 00:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|
- Reason
- Fairly uncommon in my state, "pops" nicely from the background, good quality
- Articles this image appears in
- Musk Lorikeet, True parrots
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator -- Noodle snacks ( talk) 12:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice photograph, I especially like the background. Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 14:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not thrilled with the harsh lighting. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose due to harsh lighting. Cacophony ( talk) 16:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose harsh artificial lighting, while artificial lighting would have been necessary to take this shot, a lower flash intensity and use of diffuser would be needed to produce softer light
Capital photographer (
talk)
08:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- I also managed to get another one when there was some light about. However I have uploaded an alternate version with natural light. Noodle snacks ( talk) 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We're getting there. Now if that alternate showed the tail as well as the rest, I would support it. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 10:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The first, shot at 1/200, is much crisper than the second shot at 1/80. I don't mind the flash as much as other people seem to, but it is true it changes the colors, and might not be ideal for an encyclopedia article. Since you have a color reference file, you could tone down and adjust the colors to match the reference image. I did something quick in 'Image:Musk Lorikeet edit.jpg' (
sorry, not sure how to linkadded). I will delete it in a few days, since these changes should be done on the original full resolution, pre-sharpened, raw file. Tomfriedel ( talk) 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC) - Oppose. In addition to the lighting, the first shot (and edit) have some pretty noticable jpeg artifacts, especially around the edges of the bird. The alternate is close, but the combination of composition and detail just don't quite add up to Featured-level quality.-- ragesoss ( talk) 17:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose all. None appear to be particularly well composed or otherwise great pictures. Becky Sayles ( talk) 00:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 06:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)