Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thalassarche bulleri in flight 3 - SE Tasmania.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Thalassarche bulleri in flight 3 - SE Tasmania.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 02:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • From 16 Mpx to 2 Mpx is 12.5%. That's called a teaser, not an FP candidate. It is a good image to illustrate web pages and will be a fine VI candidate, but calling this the best commons has to offer?  B.p. 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose -- Agree with Biopics. Not a requirement but a legitimate reason to oppose considering the goal of FP. Part of the body is blown white and seems pixelated. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Better "wow" factor than the average FP, but for images at minimum resolution I only prefer to support with super "wow," which this image has not reached IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per my above argument. If arguments like it's a relatively high-ISO-shot and this resolution allows for effective sharpening, while higher resolutions might not is valid, we've provisions like uploading the original file over and then reverting back to the current version so that anyone can use the original if preferred. JKadavoor Jee 05:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly, that's true. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support While I don't dispute the image may be somewhat downsampled and a bit oversharpened (there are jaggies all round the bird) the comments here on size aren't fair IMO and folk may want to reconsider their protests. The image is not downsampled 12.5%. The vertical resolution is a conseqence of the wide aspect ratio and quite effective IMO. The horizontal resolution is 41% of the original output from the camera. The bird takes up 75% of the width at about 1550 px. Now look at Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds for other bird-in-flight photographs. Generally, for birds that aren't close up, the pixel size of the other FP flying birds are no higher. This photo was taken with a 500mm lens on a boat on high waves. Could it just be that the bird didn't exactly fill the viewfinder? Can JJ 75% fill the viewfinder with bird-in-flight while arranging the appropriate negative-space on the right-hand-side holding a 500mm lens on a rocking boat? If he can, I expect shortly after he walked on water as his second miracle. So perhaps this image is 50% cropped horizontally and 80%-size downsampled (which is not at all an unreasonable downsample given the ISO and conditions). I think it is a good photograph but I am concerned that we already have two featured pictures of this bird in flight over the sea, also taken by JJ. Since FP is meant to be our "finest", then perhaps three is pushing things. It is a better composition than this and stronger colours than this. Also, this photo, which not featured and possibly oversaturated, has lots of sharp detail the others lack. So there are plently great pictures to compare with. It would be nice if the sharpening was turned down a wee bit too. -- Colin (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sill believe my argument is valid (Why not upload the original file below the current version?). I don't want to fooled by supporting a near thumbnail size contribution; thus unconsciously boosting the commercial value of the original file for sale (See Please send me an email if you wish to negotiate for higher resolution copies, prints or less restrictive licensing.). Sorry if I'm rowing against the wind, making new friends. (Yes; now we're friends at Facebook. I appreciate JJ's spirit to accept criticism which is not very COMMON here.)   JKadavoor Jee 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jee, I can't think of any image purchaser that would be enticed into a higher valuation because it is featured on Commons. In fact the contrary is true for Getty Images, where CC licensing removes any possibility of even the higher resolution image from being represented as Rights Managed. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Thalassarche_bulleri_in_flight_3_-_SE_Tasmania.jpg&oldid=296806783"