Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Redshank lake geneva-4.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates
edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2017 at 20:58:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
  •   Info Redshank at the shore of Lake Geneva. This particular area had fallen dry over the last weeks and I was able to take a few nice pictures of migrating waders. While laying still on the ground behind my camera they came quite close. Created by C-M - uploaded by C-M - nominated by C-M -- C-M (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral As this is my own picture. -- C-M (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Nicely posed, but noisy. Not just in the background, but on the birds itself. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per Daniel. There's also some obtrusive unsharp foreground that I find distracting, and I have a preference for at least what the bird is immediately standing on looking realistic, though others wouldn't care. I think the bird is not that far from FP quality, as it is pretty sharp throughout, though noisy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I uploaded a new version with noise reduction and a slight crop to achieve a cleaner foreground. Personally I tend not to bother with noise too much on high resolution images as you barely zoom in 1:1 where it becomes obvious & you loose a bit of sharpeness. C-M (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not ready to support this photo for FP, but I've struck my opposing vote. I've seen clearer birds at FPC, but this is a large file for a bird photo, it's a nice bird, and I like that we can see its body from its head to its feet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough compared to e.g. File:Common Redshank Tringa totanus.jpg. I'm surprised at the noise levels as ISO 560 shouldn't be that high for a D500, but I see from the EXIF that the exposure has been lifted 1.4ev and a +25 dehaze is a lot and that does tend to add lots of noise. Maybe more luck in brighter light conditions. Btw, CM, most folk support their own picture nominations. You're posting here, so we assume you think it FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Comment I had an other go with the Lightroom Sliders which reduced the noise an other time (less EV+, bit of Highlight, no Dehaze, less sharpening) Compared to the existing picture: The light situation is definitively not compareable, my picture has been taken about half an hour before sunset which gives more muted contrasts and softer shaddows, something I prefer over strong daylight. I could probably have gotten more sharpness by going to F8 with a higher ISO, but that would have increased the noise even further. In terms of texture I prefer my feathers, the existing picture has a strange effect where only the tips are sharp and everything else looks rather mushy - any Ideas how that happened? To much denoise with masking on strong edges? Anyway: I highliy appreciate your comments as they give an other perspective, I only started taking bird photography more seriously very recently and still learn and try to improve my technique. C-M (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm no bird expert. Try User:Charlesjsharp for advice on technique as he's nominated quite a few. I agree the light may be photogenically better at this hour (I do like the colours and composition and action, per Yann, which often is lacking in our "bird species identification" photos), but it is also a problem wrt achieving a low noise / fast shutter. I find high noise can really reduce the sharpness when one is looking closely (though absolutely fine for small "for the web" sized images). But so can using a lens wide-open or having too slow a shutter. It is not easy to balance these. I presume your lens has OIS, though from my experience (and from reviews) that seems to increase one's chances of a sharp-enough image rather than being reliable, so taking many shots could improve your chances of a sharp image. If the bird is fast moving, 1/500s might not be fast enough. The two pictures aren't completely comparable, though I downsized yours a little to make a farer comparison, and the other one still looked sharper. Sharpness isn't everything, if you have a great image, and in the past many of our bird photos were heavily downsized, which hides these flaws. Btw, best to ping me if you reply as I don't always re-look at nominations I've voted on. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Others know much more about processing than I do, though it is clear than NR has reduced definition on this image. I'm surprised you have tried 1/500 with a 600mm lens without a tripod. That and F5.6 are going to make life difficult. When I'm lying on the ground, I find it difficult to keep the camera super still, even with it resting on something and always use IS lenses. Evening light can look great, but it will cost you several stops. For mammals, evening light works well, but for a bird portrait, you are not going to get such a good result. The ISO setting is not the problem here - up to ISO800 should be fine. Charles (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral support I like very much the colors and the composition. I hope you can get it right next time. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 22:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Redshank_lake_geneva-4.jpg&oldid=244134095"