Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni) male head.jpg/2

File:Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni) male head.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 17:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info This is a renomination using a (less tight) crop of the the original file processed by The Photographer, hopefully without the defects of the previous version. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this quite an impressive closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the sharpness and background are all fine, but my previous reason for opposing is still there: "I would have liked to see a bit more of the bird's neck. Now it looks as if it is striving to keep its head above the bottom line of the photo. With such a heavy beak, almost (vertical) centering the eye is not enough, the centre of gravity of the subject is too low." --cart-Talk 11:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this crop is actually worse than the original one. It introduced additional space at the top and right, but what is missing is some en:Lead room at the bottom and left. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose So I've looked at many bird FPs to judge how this one stacks up. My strongest argument so far is that it crops out too much on the bottom while the headroom is not containing much information about the environment the bird is in (grass? green mud? Zoo?). Comparing with FPs of birds with blurred background, most of them at least have more bird to look at in them, but to be fair some are in fact very similar in composition. Going along is that the lighting is good but IMO not adding any excitement, the whole image looks a bit grey and unprocessed (the file history shows that it originates from a OOC RAW, and the subsequent versions never added saturation), so if this would be improved together with the composition I would be willing to reconsider. I often read that FP needs wow and I believe FPs should showcase both excellent photography and subjects. The subject has potential, but I can't find enough aspects of good photography, it's just a unprocessed telephoto shot under diffuse light with green background. – Lucas ^T 17:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Lucas and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 17:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]