Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roadside hawk (Rupornis magnirostris) immature 2.jpg

File:Roadside hawk (Rupornis magnirostris) immature 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2017 at 11:26:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info As with most birds, the young ones are less frightened of us. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. The surrounding greenery makes for a pretty busy scene, but while that would "kill" many other nominations it works to your advantage here. The brown twig on the left is a bit distracting to me as it has about the same color as the bird and is thus trying to draw my attention away from the subject a bit. I wish it wasn't there, but I can easily live with it. --El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I could easily crop a bit off the left side, but I think that might cramp the bird too much. Charles (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Atsme 📞 13:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a big fan of the (noisy? overprocessed?) background - but the main subject is very well lit and detailed. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I'm not a big fan of noisy back- and or foregrounds too. On the contrary. Also the blurred leaves right below is disturbing me. I honour that it seems to be wildlife. So I would give a neutral if the noise would be strong visible reduced without worsening the bird. --Hockei (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the comments, I've uploaded a tighter crop with noise reduction. Hope you all prefer it @Hockei: . Charles (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you denoised it and I cannot see if you made it to reduce the colour noise enough. For me it looks like as if it is better (not perfect). The bird is sharper than the former version, good so. The crop looks better too. Also you increased the contrast so that the bright parts of the plumage looks overexposed now. The exposure (not the dark only the bright parts) has to be reduced again. --Hockei (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Unfortunately you obviously are not inclined to do that so I stay with a neutral. --Hockei (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would do but I am not at home so cannot re-process. Charles (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per El Grafo. This is one of those times where a potentially distracting background behind an animal works in the image's favor. Its colors do not clash, and it gives us some idea of the animal's natural habitat. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 18:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The bird is beautiful. I don't care too much about the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support. Excellent lighting, though the feathers in the middle are a bit less sharp than ideal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel I must oppose this one, for the reason given by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ - the plumage of the feathers just isn't rendered clearly enough for me. Nice shot, though.--Peulle (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds