Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Junglefowl on tree.jpg

Image:Junglefowl on tree.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2015 at 09:54:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Philip Pikart -- Xenon 77 (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Xenon 77 (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent shot with good timing, light, pose and color. Good composition too, but I think it can be improved furher by cropping a bit off to the right to off-center the junglefowl (see annotation) and give the impression it has even more space to the left to emit its sound in. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for remark, image edited! --Xenon 77 (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Bojars (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak oppose Nice photo but the head is blurry. A pity. --Laitche (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Nice photo but the head is out of focus because of too shallow DOF(f/4), A pity and sorry. (IMO) --Laitche (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For me blurry is something different than hitting the great feathers of the bird instead of the eyes which is only visible at 24MP of resolution. Lesson learned: The next time I'll upload lower resolution.--Xenon 77 (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenon 77: : I understand your frustration with this argument, but please do not downsample in the future just because of this review. @Laitche: : I think your review is a little unfair. The image resolution is very large. If you look at it at, e.g., approximately 6 Mpx resolution (three times the minimum requirement), I think it has very good pixel quality. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it. I mean the DOF(f/4) issue exactly, but this was taken ISO640, if use around f/11, probably motion blur would happen I assume so I used the word "blurry". But I should have written it more politely and carefully, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better with the crop. Yann (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pity about the head but per Slaunger. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7 --LivioAndronico talk 07:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly blurred/unsharp right leg of the creature. But excellent composition and colours. --Pugilist (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that sharp in the head. Can you add binomial name. --Charles (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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