Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black Phoebe

Black Phoebe

Original - A perching Black Phoebe, photographed in Los Angeles, California. Subject is around 5 inches (13 cm) in size. The species is identifiable by its strongly contrasting plumage between head and belly.

Reason: a sharp, nicely lit, uncluttered image that well illustrates the subject in profile with good feather detail.
Articles this image appears in: Black Phoebe
Creator: Mfield

Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A flawless photograph (IMO). Kaldari (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sasata (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Nice, but I prefer having more of a background to connect the animal to its environment. There are also a few smudges that could be removed (over the head and to the right of the beak) and an interesting dark streak (shadow?) at the bottom. Fletcher (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spots are gone. I don't think the faint and v fuzzy shadow on the wall is distracting so I am leaving it unless more people think it an issue. As for the background, well it is his environment, he's a city boy :) Problem is you can't really have clear and unobstructed view of a small bird without the background being plain or being so far out of DOF as to be uninformative anyway. No one plant or tree in particular is going to be informative about the entire species as far as enc value goes, this is a species found in a wide range of places. Alternately, framing looser and showing more of the background generally would result in much less detail with a bird this small, it was difficult enough to get 8 feet from this little one to fill enough of the frame even at c. 600mm. I have seen so many bird FPs shot down for cluttered backgrounds or things in the way that I chose this as a more illustrative shot (instead of the many more in tree shots I had that showed less of the bird due to obstructions). Anyway enough wombling on - I am not being defensive just thinking out loud. Mfield (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Can't really find any reason to oppose. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support my cat Samantha has a different idea of what would make a good natural environment for this shot. I told her to retract her claws and rate this as excellent work. Durova^Charge! 07:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meow ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 08:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support without a doubt. Absolutely fabulous. GARDEN 21:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bird shot of the year so far, for me. Bravo. mikaul^talk 11:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done. — Aitias // discussion 01:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as above. What is that at the top left corner? --Muhammad(talk) 06:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Nice clear image, sharp as well. But yes what is that in the top left hand corner. Also where is the camera data. Adam (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a small patch of sunlight on an otherwise shady wall. Mfield (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What about the camera date, I have noticed a few others of yours that do not have it. Adam (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a consequence of doing a save for web from PS which I don't do most of the time. It was not a conscious effort to hide anything but now you mention it, I do sort of feel that EXIF information is overvalued by everyone else when it is only really of interest to/the business of the photographer. Does it diminish the image to not know those details? FWIW, this was ISO 400, 1/320s, f9, 300mm+1.4x TC, fill flash. Mfield (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't I was just curious as to why it was not there. I know that when I run some of my images through photoshop and ptgui the camera data dissapears but the camera date table is still there with some minimal information. Like this image for instance . Adam (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think as Photoshop defaults to leaving the copyright info in place in SFW, it probably leaves enough EXIF/IPTC data in place that would cause the table to appear, even though it does not transfer the camera data. It would probably all vanish if you changed that default. Mfield (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

300mm +1.4x = 420mm. You mentioned above c. 600mm. Does the c stand for something or am I missing something ;)? --Muhammad(talk) 20:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was shot with a 1.6x crop body so its the FOV equivalent of 1.6 x 420mm = 672mm, and the image is slightly cropped so I am guessing around 600mm in 35mm equivalent FOV. Mfield (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Black phoebe sayornis nigricans.jpg MER-C 02:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]