Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ring-billed Gull

Original

Edit 1 Color corrected the original, was too yellow and warm in general

Edit 2 Color corrected, properly this time ;-).

Color example - Not for voting

Reason: Yes, I know, we have several other FPs of Gulls. We do not, however have one of a Ring-billed gull and I think this is as good a picture as any. Sharpness, detail, size, informative angle. I know that the light could have been a little better and the composition can be seen as a bit bland but I think overall it is FP quality.
Proposed caption: A Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) at Nantasket Beach, Massachusetts. Clearly visible is the dark ring on the bill of the Gull from which its name is derived.
Articles this image appears in: Ring-billed Gull
Creator: User:Fcb981

Support as nominator (Self nom) Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 23:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded the edit after a second look at the image and the RBG histogram showed me what I feared. The color was very yellow shifted. I did the RAW conversion on a computer I wasn't used to and I guess I set the wrong WB. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 23:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Still way too yellow. Also, the neck looks unnatural - it appears the gull is walking along the beach, and the shutter snapped just when the neck was in this unattractive position - or does this bird have no neck? ;-) --Janke | Talk 05:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Enclosed is a small example (not for voting) of what I think the color balance should be like. Looking at it, it also appears thet there's no detail in the breast feathers - blown highlight? (All uniform yellow in the original.) --Janke | Talk 05:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's better if the photographer does this from the raw file. That's why I left my example small. --Janke | Talk 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, Janke. Here is an edit. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The detail is just not there, it almost looks like it was run through a posterize filter. Noclip 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Noclip, and I oppose. It is large, yes, but there is quite a fair amount of picture fragmentation in the background, and there are very few details in the picture to be awed by. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]