Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea alba modesta composite - Gould's Lagoon.jpg

File:Ardea alba modesta composite - Gould's Lagoon.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2012 at 09:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea alba modesta composite - Gould's Lagoon.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea alba modesta composite - Gould's Lagoon.jpg

•  Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by User:JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison -- JJ Harrison (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Quite an encyclopaedic (composite) shot in my view - you can see all the plumage. --JJ Harrison (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Very nice. Is that the same bird in the two source images? —Bruce1ee^talk 09:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, a sequential frame taken 1/10th of a second later. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    •  Neutral, leaning to oppose. I think this is misleading. The picture gives you the notion that these birds fly in pairs. Tomer T (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Citron (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Paris 16 (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Wow --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose ISO 3600 is bad and visible: the noise reduction in the background and the lost of detail in the bright plumage... I tend to agree with Tomer T, too, there's really a false impression (not too bad because of the increased encyclopedic value). All in all not featured, but very nice though. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "weak support" or "weak oppose"??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    •  Neutral now. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The background is irrelevant - it is way out of focus anyway. I didn't do a significant level of NR on the bird itself. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • that's definitely not correct. The background is always an important part of an image, so it has to be assess, too. I thought so that you didn't denoised the bird, and I don't assert it, but with ISO 3200 there cannot be as many details as with an lower ISO level. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Support. oppose "Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer". Quote from FP critera.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no viewer deception at all, because of the very clear "retouched" template and the precise file description page. A complete review must include a short visit to the file page, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • btw, there is a small white issue along the right edge to be corrected...--Jebulon (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above. Maybe you can edit it differently, and form some border between the two parts so that it's not misleading. Tomer T (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Sorry. In my statement above I may be mis-reading the criteria. "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive", is the next sentence. I agree that is a very nice image and with the manipulation modified as stated above like adding a line, etc. I will reverse my vote. If enough others agree that it does not go against criteria as is, I will change my vote as well. I think we are allowed to ignore some rules here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The manipulation isn't misleading because it is stated clearly in the image description. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have thought on it further. It is the same as the solar eclipse image elsewhere here. Shots combined into one image. I changed my vote to support.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

•  weak support I think the photography is great; I don't mind the high iso whites. The featured content to me is the two opposites phases of the bird flight (and the bird itself). I object only on the alignment of the two flight phases.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I find it too misleading. If it were a sequence of, say, five shots with gradual changes, one would understand that it is the same bird in multiple shots. But here it is confusing. There should be a clear border between the two shots, or they should be presented separately. Gidip (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I actually have a whole sequence of frames, but the bird is changing altitude, so I would have bits of missing background if I stitched them. It may be possible to put five together or something though. JJ Harrison (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That may be easier that you think I did that with File:Heron and small trout crop.jpg I had to rotate and stitch in some water and rock sections. It didn't take long in gimp with oval sections feathered to a 20 pixel threshold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but I can see where the cloning occurred easily in that shot, and there isn't a uniform background for the egret shot.
•  Neutral Will support if it is cropped to the left for balance. -- Soerfm (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Miguel Bugallo 01:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support it doesnt need the retouch template because its two images combined not one altered Gnangarra 02:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Tamba52 (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- I think separate images in other versions with suitable labels like wings-up, wings-down (I don't know correct terms :D) is good. I also believe there should be an altitude variation between these to positions but I'm not sure because I didn't study that topic (flight of birds) well. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The alignment is accurate because I used the background features to do it. You would expect the body of the bird to be lower with the wings up. I'll see what I can do about separate images at some point. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the explanation. Yes; I can see a variation in the body levels. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I like it! DimiTalen 14:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Super--David საქართველო 14:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I like this picture. --Onderwijsgek (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I bit misleading in a sense we first believe to see a pair, but very nice. And nice stitch as well (though I assume it's not the most difficult stitch to perform). - Benh (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment I just came across this featured picture with similar issues: File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama) -2.jpg--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that image is the same at all. Here I have lined up two real frames using the background, and there is no superimposition. The goal is to show all flight plumage, and the two important phases of wing position. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I meant that is a featured picture that seems to have slipped past the 'do not deceive' rule for FPs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

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