Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buff-banded Rail 1 - Newington.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Buff-banded Rail 1 - Newington.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2021 at 15:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Buff-banded Rail
  • To clarify, the extremely special and very expensive lens used here and on a lot of JJ Harrison's bird photos, allows the photographer to select a very narrow band of perfectly sharp DoF while the rest of the image (foreground and background) becomes a smooth bokeh. If the bird is photographed in flight up in the sky, this effect is hardly noticeable, but at ground level it can look somewhat surreal. It's a style choice; some like and some don't. More info about the lens here. --Cart (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we please avoid making personal negative comments ("I've never liked John Harrison's blurred forgrounds"). This is absolutely standard at an advanced level of wildlife photography. See this and this, this, this and this, etc, etc, etc. -- Colin (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahum, this is not about getting down and dirty for a low level of shooting; Charles himself recommends it both here and here on current nominations. It's only this specific lens with its bokeh capabilities that's bugging him. We've heard it several times before (Like here for example). --Cart (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect, Charles, but there is low and there is on-the-ground low. That lizard photo was either taken on sloping ground [it was Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)] or from about knee height (otherwise we'd see sky or distant shrubs/trees in the background). The links I gave show some examples of the difference achieved when you get really really low. I remember reading a discussion from JJ with Diliff many many years ago that described crawling along mud flats on one's belly for a very long distance. The lizard photo was taken from 2.4m according to the EXIF with a 470mm equivalent lens giving a field-of-view of 4.4°. This photo I don't know the distance but the 1500mm equivalent lens has a tiny field-of-view of 1.4°. The difference of low height + distance here means we have a long section of foreground compressed into a thin slice. It wouldn't I believe, look a whole lot different with a 500mm lens vs 1500mm equivalent. The effect is largely due to angle-of-view: the linked websites show many very similar images shot with fairly standard telephoto lenses.[reply]
But importantly, I don't think it is healthy to negatively single out a person by name, as though this is "John Harrison's blurred forgrounds". Reviewers here might personally associated that look with one photographer, but that says more about reviewers at FPC and their experiences and observations than it does about that photographer. And negative comments like these make advanced photographers despair and decide to contribute to websites where their skill and talents are appreciated, not questioned. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the discussion Cart links to I had a long offline discussion with JJH and totally accepted the results produced by his lens. I vote to promote many of his excellent images. I just don't like the blurred foreground look, though I have not opposed this nomination. And, I have never pretended to be an advanced photographer, Colin. I claim to be a wildlife portrait photographer, nothing more. Oh! in case you wondered, Colin's "No disrespect" means "Disrespect" these days. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Rallidae_(Coots,_Rails_and_Crakes)