Fake because of the way the image pretended to be natural. There is nothing wrong with manipulating images, but pretending a composite image to be natural is deceitful, and fake. Lycaon19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I was just about to list this here myself. Although it must be very unusual to remove a FP so soon after its promotion, I think the evidence presented in the en:W discussion establishes that this picture is not what it appears. There is of course no objection to the use of Photoshop, as such, but here it has been used to create an image which is not genuine. With a genuine image, there would be no reason at all for a fault-line to appear between the two birds. Serious concerns have also been expressed, both here and on en:W, about the genuineness of another picture by this uploader, namely Image:Silvereyepairofjuveniles.jpg (see old FP candidates, here). --MichaelMaggs23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Image is not a 'fake', and none of my other images are 'fakes'; just because it is a composite does that mean it is fake or not genuine? I think not. Then all paintings and illustrations would be fake! True, people know a scene depicted by a painter is not nesseceraly truthfull, but it often is. although a scene depicted in a painting was not happening at the time of it's creation it may be a perfectly mundane and ordinary thing such as two birds perching together. And in the same way the birds were not perching together when I took the photo but it's not uncommon for them to do so - can anyone honestly say they have never seen two birds perching together?! Benjamint
It doesn't say anywhere that an image canot be a composite so it shouldn't have been an issue when people were voting and therfore unimportant, it's the final image that counts.benjamint
Not so. Its composite nature was and is highly relevant to the image's merit, and should have been disclosed. Doesn't the overwhelmingly negative reaction you have received both here and on the English Wikipedia tell you that undisclosed composite images which result in a highly misleading view of the main subject are not much valued by the community? --MichaelMaggs07:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When this image was initially proposed for FP status, you said in a comment that "I only get a few weeks each year to get a got shot and they rarely stay put for more than a few seconds in direct sunlight, thus the flash. It's also not very common for them both to be on the same perch for long enough to get a photo" (See here). It's difficult to see how that statement can be anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead. --MichaelMaggs08:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forthrightness by the nominator is extremely important for the FP process or we risk people claiming images they found somewhere as theirs, since it's almost impossible to contradict false ownership claims. So it's really pretty simple: Give an honest account on where the image comes from and what you did to it to get it in its current shape, or you have no right to expect that other editors give it serious consideration. Your hamfisted excuses are getting tedious. ~ trialsanderrors19:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agree with above arguments. Didn't pretty much like it from the very begining (unnatural flash-look as I stated in the FP-candidate). --Atoma17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist agree with Alvesgaspar. It should be at least tagged with the "Retouched picture"-tag with a description of what has been altered or retouched ..otherwise it is a kind of cheating. But i want to emphasize that i am not in general against retouching. --AngMoKio19:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- So the author will never lie like this again. I would keep my support if the creator would have told us that this is made up of two images and he could fix the stitch errors. --Arad22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I've seen superb fairy wrens dancing and hopping about, and I was quite surprised when I first saw this pictures, because it would be very rare to see two together like this, and if you did, it would be only for a fleeting moment. The image is not honest to the nature of the animal. Pengo16:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]