Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 09:05:23 (UTC)
Reason
This was nominated a few years ago, and people complained about a halo that was present at the time. Nobody thought of fixing it, which I've now done (it was easy), so I'm nominating in the spirit that the concerns have been addressed.
Comment. Erm, but you've just replaced an luminosity halo with a lack-of-image-noise halo. Maybe you should de-noise the rest of the blue sky to make it consistent. Also, I think what was overlooked is the fact that it it wasn't just the halo. The halo was just a side effect of the bigger problem which was the extreme shadow lifting that seemed to have been done to the original. I commented in the original nom that the photo looked overcooked, and I think it still does...
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't think you've ever commented on the alt before. It'll be easier to think of what else it needs once we have a general preference for one or the other.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 19:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
I have. If you refer to the
original nom, what you call the Alt here was the Original there. My comment to Fir specifically refers to it in detail.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
The histogram shows no evidence of manipulation, and I can find
similarlyexposed photographs elsewhere, so I see no basis for doubting the assertion that this is how it came out of the camera.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 22:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
I'd have to agree that there has been excessive use of the shadow/highlight tool. Fill flash would have the same effect on the shadows, but look at the haloing on the inside of the wing on the left.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Support edit, although the pic lacks some 40 pixels of minimum height.
Twilightchillt 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Support edit: Months and months ago I was going to nominate this, but my halo reduction skills are nil. Edit is great and fixes the issue, the bird is sharp and handsome, and the flight is dynamic. To Twilight Chill above, there is no minimum height requirement? The pic meets the size criterion fine.
Maedin\talk 11:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)reply
WP:WIAFP demands a minimum of 1,000 pixels in height or width, but here it's not so serious.
Twilightchillt 17:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, and it has 1,419 in width.
Maedin\talk 17:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak support edit. Still think the shadows are lacking slightly, but it's otherwise a good capture.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 09:05:23 (UTC)
Reason
This was nominated a few years ago, and people complained about a halo that was present at the time. Nobody thought of fixing it, which I've now done (it was easy), so I'm nominating in the spirit that the concerns have been addressed.
Comment. Erm, but you've just replaced an luminosity halo with a lack-of-image-noise halo. Maybe you should de-noise the rest of the blue sky to make it consistent. Also, I think what was overlooked is the fact that it it wasn't just the halo. The halo was just a side effect of the bigger problem which was the extreme shadow lifting that seemed to have been done to the original. I commented in the original nom that the photo looked overcooked, and I think it still does...
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't think you've ever commented on the alt before. It'll be easier to think of what else it needs once we have a general preference for one or the other.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 19:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
I have. If you refer to the
original nom, what you call the Alt here was the Original there. My comment to Fir specifically refers to it in detail.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
The histogram shows no evidence of manipulation, and I can find
similarlyexposed photographs elsewhere, so I see no basis for doubting the assertion that this is how it came out of the camera.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 22:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
I'd have to agree that there has been excessive use of the shadow/highlight tool. Fill flash would have the same effect on the shadows, but look at the haloing on the inside of the wing on the left.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Support edit, although the pic lacks some 40 pixels of minimum height.
Twilightchillt 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Support edit: Months and months ago I was going to nominate this, but my halo reduction skills are nil. Edit is great and fixes the issue, the bird is sharp and handsome, and the flight is dynamic. To Twilight Chill above, there is no minimum height requirement? The pic meets the size criterion fine.
Maedin\talk 11:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)reply
WP:WIAFP demands a minimum of 1,000 pixels in height or width, but here it's not so serious.
Twilightchillt 17:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, and it has 1,419 in width.
Maedin\talk 17:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Weak support edit. Still think the shadows are lacking slightly, but it's otherwise a good capture.
Ðiliff«»(Talk) 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)reply