Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common moorhen in Suita, Osaka, December 2016 - 689.jpg

File:Common moorhen in Suita, Osaka, December 2016 - 689.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 15:09:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Rallidae_.28Coots.2C_rails_and_crakes.29
Info |c|u|n| by Laitche (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't like that unsharp conifer cone, or whatever it is, but I had to look at this photo for a while to recognize that the upside-down bird on the bottom is a reflection of the moorhen, because it's so clear. Beautiful bird, seamless composition, special photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: That conifer cone is a lotus and all dead grasses in background are lotuses. --Laitche (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go - it's so unsharp, I confused a lotus with a conifer cone. I consider that the only real drawback of an otherwise great picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, The focus is all on the bird, that makes objects behind it unsharp, the same goes for any object at the same distance in front of the bird. Now, you don't seem to mind the unsharp lotus stems, the unsharp lotus seed pod is the other side of that coin, a sacrifice that has to be made to get the bird and reflection (the reflection being at the same distance from the camera as the bird) looking this good. The only option to get the seed pod sharp as well, would be focus stacking, but that's near impossible for such a shot. cart-Talk 16:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have a different reaction to unsharp background, which is anyway readily recognizable as stems, than to somewhat obtrusive unsharp foreground. It just feels much more intuitive to me for background to fade. If something is so close to my eyes that it's blurred, I find the sensation uncomfortable and back up. Anyway, I fully take your point that this was necessary in context, but to me, that makes it a necessary evil, not something per se good. You might agree with me that if all that was in the photo was unsharp foreground, you wouldn't support a feature, but of course that is not the case! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it's a good or bad thing, just explaining the physics of it. Cameras have yet to catch up with what the human eye can see and the brain can process. At least at your age, just wait until you get older and things in the foreground starts to get blurry too. ;) cart-Talk 19:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support WauW - GREAT --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like an old-school screen painting. --cart-Talk 16:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is too cluttered (and not sufficiently blurred) to see the subject clearly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Laitche (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a {{Neutral}} maybe would be better for you (calculating the difficulty of the shot and your reasons) --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 23:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before I voted, I googled the bird to see what other pictures looked like, and most of them had the subject clearly isolated from the background. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marvellous reflection and crispness, and I like the geometry of the background vegetation. -- Slaunger (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! great job! Kruusamägi (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King. Daniel Case (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have met, when there is water, people want to get reflexion in any given case, like reflexion is more important than main subject. I would crop. --Mile (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bird in his true habitat. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Laitche Put Order above. --Mile (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mile: I think cropped version does not deserve an FP. --Laitche (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)~~ _{--Laitche (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Laitche fill-up the category. --Mile (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

??? --Laitche (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gruiformes > Rallidae J e e 13:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jee. --Laitche (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak There is a lack of subject isolation, as noted by KoH. It's just too busy for me -- Thennicke (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 04:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Color and contrast adjustment by Christian Ferrer. --Laitche (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I don't know how to choose between these two versions. Laitche, which one do you think is most true-to-life? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: I think Christian's edit is not bad (the shadows are a bit clipped though) and I don't remember which colors are more close what I was seeing... Then I don't mind whichever you like. --Laitche (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, since I really can't pick between them, I'll Support this version, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support just in case... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just for info my edition is mainly firtsly a highpass filter and then adjusment of color and contrast. All in purpose to highlight the bird. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the subject details and surrounding habitat. But the reflection didn't work for me as it is too crowded. Further there is an object (leaf part?) over the legs in the reflection. I prefer a landscape composition with lead room in left and more head room (without that reflection). J e e 04:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still too busy. lNeverCry 04:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Rallidae (Coots, rails and crakes)

The chosen alternative is: File:Common moorhen in Suita, Osaka, December 2016 - 689.jpg