Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), Windsor, Ontario, 2014-12-07.jpg

File:Portrait of ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), Windsor, Ontario, 2014-12-07.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2014 at 20:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Crisco 1492 -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but maybe you could reduce noise in the background --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already denoised a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. Nice to have close portraits which bring out their eye in such beautiful detail. --99of9 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

99of9, I think for your !vote to be considered, you have to sign. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oops thanks. --99of9 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bom ângulo, mais uma espécie de ave para o banco de dados das FPs. ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. It does work well, documenting the species. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Clipped areas
Hard not to excuse again … but while idea and composition of this picture are truly great, the blown whites (of which there are huge areas all over the head!) are an absolute no-go for me. See the pic on the right, all green areas are pure white in the original. Contrast does not make the clipping inavoidable here, so the image is simply overexposed or overprocessed. --Kreuzschnabel 08:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My Lightroom is not showing as extreme highlight issues; what software are you using? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am talking about the picture nominated. The areas I have pointed out show no detail at all to me, and I found that by looking at the picture, not by using any analysing software. Be it 255/255/255 or 254/254/254, the visual effect is the same. I was using colour selection in GIMP but don’t remember the tolerance setting (admittedly it certainly wasn’t zero). However, it still shows what I feel looking at the original image. --Kreuzschnabel 15:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I checked the nominated file in Lightroom, not the original RAW. I'm guessing the two pieces of software have different thresholds (Lightroom's own settings, and the tolerance in GIMP's software). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again: I am talking about my visual impression, not about some software output. That was just to prove my impression. --Kreuz schnabel 20:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. Great close-up bird portrait. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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