Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red-billed streamertail (Trochilus polytmus) female in flight 2.JPG

File:Red-billed streamertail (Trochilus polytmus) female in flight 2.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2016 at 14:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Red-billed streamertail (Trochilus polytmus) female in flight 2.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red-billed streamertail (Trochilus polytmus) female in flight 2.JPG

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info all by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- KTC (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Laitche (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Great. --Kreuzschnabel 18:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 19:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Great --Lmbuga (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support awesome --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good things first: I like the framing in general, and it's pretty sharp with still enough motion blur on the wing tips to indicate movement – in that regard I can whole-heartedly agree to all the praise! But apart from the neck area, the bird doesn't really stand out from the dark background very much. That doesn't necessarily have to be a deal-breaker in itself, but in combination with the large white area in the background, it becomes a problem for me: The human mind/eyes are typically drawn to the brightest area in an image, and hence that white area is drawing away the attention from the subject quite strongly (at least for me). The OOF leaf in the bottom left corner partially covering the flower doesn't really help as well. Compare that with this FP – or this QI/VI if you prefer a less uniform background. I know it's difficult to pay attention to both a moving subject and the background at the same time (failing to do so I've totally messed of many macro-shots myself), but an excellent image requires an excellent background. --El Grafo (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• I would put more EV like El Grafo said. --Mile (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Main subject is excellent, however, IMHO fore and background are disturbing --The Photographer (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Wow, what a great shot! --Halavar (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support But crop see notice. --Hockei (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the crop is a possibility, I agree, but I liked the red flower. Charles (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It's OK. But IMO the cropped big blurred green leaf in the foreground on the left side is better for the picture than to keep it because of the part of the flower (blossom) above. It would be a small sacrifice. --Hockei (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Special moment,no fault of the photographer for the background --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

*Mild, conditional  Oppose. I've observed hummingbirds, so I understand how fast they fly and how hard it is to get a good photo of one. If you decided to do a crop of the left side (and possibly the bottom), such that we no longer see the larger blurred leaf, I would support a feature. Most of the flower would unfortunately be gone, but the tip probably could still be included. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --Hubertl 07:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment @Ikan Kekek: @Hockei: @The Photographer: @El Grafo: I have uploaded a slightly cropped version that I think minimizes the distraction form the green leaf, but still keeps a reasonable amount of the red flower. Of course, others may prefer the original version! Charles (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot, Charles. I like this a lot better and  Support this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• That's much better imho. But I'm still bothered by the white patch/dark bird thing. Might actually be possible to tune that down a bit with some careful dodging & burning or other local adjustments. --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have those skills... Charles (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm by far not expert either, but I've tried my luck (see version history or [1]). The trick seems to be to use a large, soft brush with low opacity. I'm sure somebody more skilled in this could do much better, but that's about what I was writing about. --El Grafo (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Poco² 21:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support It is so luckily captured that I'm willing to forgive some quality issues! --A.Savin 07:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Minimal support, per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

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