Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Columba livia - 01.jpg

File:Columba livia - 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2015 at 12:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Columba livia - 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Columba livia - 01.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info Rock dove (Columba livia) at Retiro Park, Madrid, Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kadellar (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 16:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support D kuba (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I have next to zero experience with wildlife photography and never used a lens that long, so maybe this is a stupid question, but: It seems that at 1/2500 s there would have been some wiggle room to stop down a bit more in order to get a bit more DOF? I mean, you perfectly nailed the focus on the eye, which is amazingly sharp, but the beak is pretty soft even at screen size (1024×1024 px). Not sure how to vote here yet … --El Grafo (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is not a question of lack of light. In wildlife photography, when you take a portrait (close up or full body), you want the background to be as blurred as possible, that will usually improve the image. 1/2500 is not strictly needed here, but you'd better use a quick shutter speed with birds, they make really fast small movements that can ruin the image. --Kadellar (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• OK, so it's basically the usual trade-off between foreground depth of field and background blur/bokeh you'll have in an (non-stacked/outdoor-) macro as well (with slightly different secondary factors). If this was a butterfly image I'd probably oppose, but considering the movements you mention that might not be a fair comparison. I guess I'll stay  Neutral on this one. Thanks for the explanation, though! --El Grafo (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC) PS: The eye section is still fascinating me – may I suggest to drop a crop of the eye into Category:Bird eyes and maybe nominate it at VIC with a scope like Columba livia (eye)?

•  Oppose Impressive eye and useful image, but the small DoF is too small for to make the image outstanding. -- Christian Ferrer 17:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose beak is too out of focus for me. --Charles (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry,per others --LivioAndronico talk 12:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Charles, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose DoF may well have been reasonable choice but then unfortunate that the beak is not more in line with the eye. -- Colin (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you for your support and comments. --Kadellar (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)