Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NZ North Island Robin

New Zealand North Island Robin (Toutouwai, Petroica australis longipes)

This robin is banded to identify it as part of a restoration scheme to return robins to Wellington. It was released in the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary, where it can safely breed and re-populate the surrounding area.

Reason: This bird is part of a ground breaking 'mainland island' environmental project
Articles this image appears in: New_Zealand_robin, Karori_Wildlife_Sanctuary
Creator: Tony Wills

Support as nominator — AGoon 12:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the absolute best bird pic I've seen in terms of sharpness and detail on the feathers, but this is respectively close.--Here T oHelp 14:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the angle of the bird isn't the best because the rear of the bird is foreshortened. The light is a little bit harsh (especially around the feet). The bokeh is pretty bad as well, all the out of focus sticks are distracting. The sharpness and exposure are decent, and the composition of a centered bird is made more dynamic by the reddish twig traveling on a diagonal off frame. It's a good image, and I wouldn't mind if it were featured, but it isn't that special and there are some technical concerns.-Andrew c 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/weak oppose I need to put some more thought into it. For the moment let me leave it at this. It's pretty uninspiring for a bird shot which there are plenty of and the detail isn't really that impressive. -Fcb981 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment You guys are difficult to impress :-), but I would say the feather detail on this small bird is better than many other FP birds, and this is not a common sparrow or black bird which can be photographed from the bedroom window until it's perfect :-). You might note that it was a 1/3rd of a second exposure, which is quite remarkable as this bird was hoping from branch to branch, with a slight pause on each branch, looking for insects. I especially like the reflection in its eye-ball of the predator proof fence which is an essential part of this environmental restoration project :-) --Tony Wills 121.73.5.55 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in some ways, yes. I didn't notice the 3rd second exposure time which is impressive in its self but doesn't really improve the picture. My point is that compared to the current featured pictures of birds this one isn't anything super special. Compare to this, this or this. -Fcb981 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it reflects a couple of trade-offs, I tried very hard to get the whole bird in focus rather than choosing a shallower DOF and just having the head in focus but allowing a better separation of the background and I haven't 'enhanced' the photo at all (apart from cropping) but felt the contrast between the white branches and the colours of the bird and twig was good, there is real depth to the photo. The balance between FP being eye-popping images or images valuable in other ways is something that could come into the discussion at this point :-) --Tony Wills 121.73.5.55 08:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Beautiful bird, nice quality and original shooting angle. The only thing I don't like to see is the ring. Alvesgaspar 23:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good shot for a very rare bird. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - apart from the photographic qualities mentioned by Alvesgaspar above, this image goes beyond that because it tells a story - the fence reflected in the eye, and the rings on the leg identify the bird as under the protection of a revolutionary, cutting-edge conservation project. Kahuroa 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Interesting subject but I'm afraid it's not really grabbing me, compared to many of our other bird photos. The composition seems awkward (too "top-down", and one of the feet is cropped, for example) and the image quality isn't amazing. I can sympathise with that since I also use a C750UZ, but I have photos of a similar quality that I wouldn't nominate because I don't feel they're up to scratch. I also find the background somewhat distracting - a lower perspective might have given you greater separation between subject and background and allowed you to achieve the same DOF on the bird whilst throwing the background further out of focus. There's also some glare, as mentioned above. Overall, it's a nice-ish photo but I really don't think it's up there with our best. Sorry. --YFB ¿ 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose as per Yummifruitbat's comments. I'd be happy taking a picture of this quality, but it's just not quite feature quality IMO. For me the foreshortening of the bird just makes in inappropriate as an FP. Nice shot, though. Matt Deres 01:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support' I believe this is one of the best pictures I have seen on wikipedia since I've been here since April 2007! Politics rule 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'll have to agree with YFB, sorry. But User:Mdf has set a pretty high standard for bird pics already and FPs are supposted to be Wikipedias' best. --Dschwen 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --MichaelMaggs 12:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per YFB -Wutschwlllm 18:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Angle could be better and I could do without the leg bands. Chris H 04:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The leg band is part of the bird. They are virtually extinct in the wild and the few that are left are all tagged and left on their sanctuary. This is NOT the robin that fly around in your back garden, this is an endangered species whose survival is only ensured with one single female. --antilived^{T | C | G} 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter to me, If the animal is not born with it, its not natural. And makes it a negative, but that isn't the primary reason for the oppose, its the camera angle. That just one more extra distracting problem. Chris H 14:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per YFB. I'm also not very happy with the lighting. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per YFB, mostly because of the odd angle. Calliopejen1 12:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Raven4x4x 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]