Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caffinch

Caffinch

Original

Original edit 1

Edit 2

Reason: I feel it is a really good photograph of the avifauna in question, and shows good contrast between bird and background.
Proposed caption: The Chaffinch, (Fringilla coelebs), is a small passerine bird in the finch family Fringillidae, also called a spink. Its large double white wing bars, white tail edges and greenish rump easily identify this 14-16 cm long species. A male is seen here; a breeding male caffinch is unmistakable, with a reddish underparts and a blue-grey cap.
Articles this image appears in: Finch, Passerine, Chaffinch, Fringilla, Vinkensport, List of birds of Egypt
Creator: MichaelMaggs

Support as nominator -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Ryo 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I think this is a fine encyclopedic shot, but I can't help wishing for a bit more sharpness and for a rule of thirds crop. My edit for a rough example of what might have been, but the sharpening really introduces artifacts which aren't pleasing and the crop needed to be done through the lens really. Its a good photo, just not perfect.[reply]
~~Weak support~~ -- same here. Beautiful colors, great pose and certainly encyclopedic. Focus should be on the face but it's more on the back of the bird... Wwcsig (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- after some deliberation - the sharpness is just not there. Oppose Wwcsig (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was poised to support this, but at 100% it's disappointing. It's one of those great images which should just be left to be admired in context, rather than laid out under the loupe to pull apart and mark down. I can't support it for FP: it has to be sharp under scrutiny, and it isn't. I won't oppose it, either, as it has two supports already and I'd actually be happy to see it promoted.. before running off to nominate a few similar shots of my own ;) --mikaul^talk 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will oppose the edit, though, as the original crop is one of it's best points (sorry, Ryo..)--mikaul^talk 18:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I agree at least partially. The best, Ryo 00:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support either Some minor problems with the focus, but I love the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, i agree with mikaul - it looks great on the image page but it's just too blurred when looking at it at 100% or even 50%. --Aqwis (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to try an improved edit I can email the original raw file. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding off on any vote at the moment, I'd at least like to have a look at the RAW file. It's not clear whether the artifacts/blur are processing error or are unavoidable. I won't promise that I can help but if I can I'll happily upload an edit... my email is: [email protected]. thanks -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 03:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak support No, it's not the sharpest image, but it's a very large image of a fairly small bird. At 50% size, it's still larger than life on my monitor and tolerably clear and sharp. I can't quite give full support, but it's a shot in the wild, encyclopedic, and with plenty of detail present. Matt Deres (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a wild bird. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The composition is just amazing, but the lack of sharpness is quite unfortunate. -- Chris.B | talk 15:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The raw image is being looked at by Fcb981 now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I uploaded an edit. I managed to pull a bit more texture from the feathers, retain better sharpness and minimize sharpening artifacts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcb981 (talk • contribs)

Hmm, that probably makes it a weak support edit2. I think I have a penchant for the composition in this shot, the photographer has caught the subject with a very nice expression. -- Chris.B | talk 15:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unfortunately the motion blur is too much, and I doubt it's introduced by editing: to the contrary, it had been quite aggressively sharpened already. People say 1/[equiv. focal length on 35mm] is the fastest shutter speed you should shoot photos, and 1/60 is just way too slow for a 600mm (effective) lens. Or at least, move up to a higher ISO: a clear image with noise is better than a blurry image without noise. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 2 I am happier with the processing in it. It looks more natural. The other two are to artificial to get my vote. pretty bird -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All Nice bird and lighting, but quality fails it unfortunately. Sorry! --Fir0002 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 05:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]