Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruppell's warbler.jpg
File:Ruppell's warbler.jpg, not featured
edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 09:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created by Birding around - uploaded by Birding around - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Support Great bird pose, unclattered surroundings and good quality. -- C messier (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)- Support --Ivar (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've had another look. The eye is brilliantly sharp, but I agree that the tail etc. lets the image down. Charles (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Too many noise artefacts and low DOF. --Hockei (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)- Oppose Sorry to disagree with the distinguished gentlemen above; I think this looks overprocessed, too noisy and with the tail out of focus. Quality not high enough for FP for me - I'm not even sure I'd support it as a QI.--Peulle (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose mostly per Hockei. Storkk (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose because the standard for bird FPs is quite high. Most of the bird looks sharp to me, but not the legs and especially not the tail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Hockei. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment Digital Photo Professional is not bad software though I recommend Lightroom or Photoshop. --Laitche (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
