Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus).jpg

File:Greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2022 at 08:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phoenicopteridae (Flamingos)
Info I was surprised that I had to create the category 'Birds of Bahrain'. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice use of horizontal line and the widescreen format. Reminds me of Poco's File:Jabirú africano (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis), delta del Okavango, Botsuana, 2018-07-31, DD 11.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Pity the reflection in the water is not complete--Lmbuga (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sharpening mask seems off (e.g. below the neck of the left bird, where part of the background was sharpened; halos around the neck of the right bird) and there are many sharpening artifacts (e.g head and neck of the middle flamingo, legs of the left one). Could these have been caused by a machine learning algorithm (e.g. Topaz Labs) going overboard? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have corrected some Topaz Denoise AI sharpening on the background. As you say, it can do this. The 'artefacts' on the neck are hair tufts which are there in RAW and not introduced by sharpening. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having another shot at this, Charles. I assume that the previous version had been upscaled with Gigapixel and this is now the image's native resolution? The smaller size mitigates the issues, but they are still there. Perhaps manual masking and sharpening would improve things, but ultimately the original image seems too soft for recovery (looking at the water, the camera seems to have slightly back-focused), so I regretfully Oppose

Yes, I had used Gigapixel to upscale the image for use in the nearby Movenpick Hotel's foyer! Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice composition and light, but the subjects are out of focus and there's an odd mix of sharp/blurry spots (like on the neck of the middle bird). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The procession of the three flamingos is great! But I have to rack my brains about the sharpening. The sharp part of the water looks unnatural, as if it was clotted or frozen; it would be wonderful if the sharpening could be reduced there. And while the rightmost flamingo is very sharp, its head is soft and looks like melting; this gives an unfortunate contrast. No offence, I would not tax your patience if I wasn’t conviced that this is a great photo which deserves further improvements. --Aristeas (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the issue with the water, but you are right that there is some motion blur on the leading bird's head which I had not noticed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but it is just too badly processed. Suggest going back to the raw and sticking to an "honest" tool like Lightroom's sharpen/mask rather than letting AI go crazy and having to paint over its mistakes with a blurring brush or whatever has happened here. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very regretful weak oppose per Rhododendrites and Colin. What makes it look irresistible at thumb makes it non-FP when seen in full. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly reading some of these reviews I expected it to look much more unnatural at full size but it seems fine to me Cmao20 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp/blurred Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]