Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great Egret strikes for a Fish - crop.JPG

File:Great Egret strikes for a Fish - crop.JPG, featured

Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2009 at 08:16:38

•  Info created & uploaded by Mbz1 - cropped & nominated by Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A previous nomination of the full version failed, I think because there was just too much black background and artistic though that was, that doesn't suit the illustrative format of photos preferred for wikiprojects. This is a supurb action shot that demonstrates the Egret's fishing technique very well. -- Tony Wills (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you, Tony, for the very nice introduction to the image!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Both beautiful and informative --Ronja (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Compositionally brilliant. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Lookatthis (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too confusing compo. Lycaon (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 08:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I downloaded the image to check the histogram and point out how the whites and blacks were off the scale. But I found they weren't, so if it were my image I would distribute those colors more so the image doesn't look black and white. I uploaded this file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Egret_strikes_for_a_Fish_-_crop_-_edit1.jpg Tomfriedel (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an improvement. Lycaon (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for working on the image, Tomfriedel! The thing is that lately everything for me was only white or black like a zebra with nothing in between. That's why I personally still like "black and white" version better, but please feel absolutely free to add your version to the nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a black & white version, though it may look that way at thumbnail size on a white background. Look at the images fullscreen (whith no white border) using GIMP or something that really does give fullscreen viewing. You can see quite enough of the background water, I think the edit brings up more noise into the water background and is even slightly distracting because you now see more water behind the bird. In short I think you are trying to improve on perfection (have you checked your monitor settings and computers gamma settings?) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"improve on perfection"... Thank you, Tony. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an improvement on the colour distribution. It however also brings out the shortcomings of the image: the noise was already there but was masked by the contrasty settings. Lycaon (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Info The original image File:Great Egret strikes for a Fish c.JPG was not post processed in photo shop at all as you could see from EFIX data. The image you see is the image as it was taken. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose it is a difficult shot for sure but i think the photo doesn't capture the right moment. Sorry. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Lycaon. --Karel (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as AngMoKio. --Estrilda (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I give up, what does "the right moment" mean exactly? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better if a bit more of the head would visible. Just some milliseconds before the moment on that photo. Of course it is not easy to capture the right moment...but that is a well known problem to photographers. Believe me I know what I am talking about :) --AngMoKio (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you :-). From your work, I know you do have some experience! But are you not asking for something of heroic proportions, the "perfect" picture (ok, I know I implied it was perfect ;-). This is featured pictures - the best of commons, and this far exceeds many that get into that category. Can you not judge it for the supurb picture that it is, rather than the exquisite picture it might have been if a neuron fired a millisecond earlier? --Tony Wills (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As Lycaon, I think the composition is a bit confusing this way. A millisecond earlier it might have been perfect, a millisecond btw all or nothing, if you make pictures of fast moving things you have to deal with that :) - although the photo also has quite some overexposure too, which is not such a big problem for me (if it is not too dominant) but for many others here it is. "Perfect" is maybe a too strong word, there are many FPs that are not perfect, either bcs technical quality or bcs of composition. The important thing for me is the composition and on this pic it doesn't convince me. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Conan (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)