Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:નળ સરોવર - દરિયાઇ પક્ષી.jpg

Image:નળ સરોવર - દરિયાઇ પક્ષી.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Divyesh Sejpal - uploaded by Spundun - nominated by Spundun --Spundun 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Info A Seagull just landed in Nal Sarovar... I'm glad to announce a rare FP candidate from India, from the Nal Sarovar Sanctuary for migratory birds. I hope it does well.
•  Support --Spundun 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Question Oh and extra thanks if someone can ID the species. --Spundun 06:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support great photo... Jacopo 06:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support It is a Larus ridibundus Nino Barbieri 10:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks --Spundun 09:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --Tony Wills 09:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Full size version certainly has some flaws, but a striking picture. --Tony Wills 12:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose purple fringing, lack of details caused by post processing and insufficient focus, and unfortunate file name. Lycaon 11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Unfortunate in what way ? --Tony Wills 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

 CommentIf you are not able to see the name of the file properly, you should read en:Help:Multilingual support (Indic) --Spundun 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --Winiar^✉ 11:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose the gull is a bit out of focus; moreover I can see JPEG compression artifacts next to the gull. Plus a detail: it's better not to use non-ascii characters in the filename, it can cause compatibility problems. Alessio Damato 12:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • :) I guess its better not to have non-ascii wikipedias either since they can cause compatibility problems. Although there are about 22 great Featured pictures that have non-ascii characters in the filenames... e.g. Image:Eugène Delacroix - La liberté guidant le peuple.jpg, Image:Eyjafjallajökull.jpeg, Image:Päijänne and päijätsalo.jpg, Image:Hestemøj.jpg, Image:Villingerød kirke.jpg, Image:Detailaufnahme Weihnachtsstern - groß.jpg, Image:POL województwo łęczyckie IRP COA.svg. The reason I like this picture is how the bird has just touched the water and the ripples are just starting to form, combined with the bird's pose. --Spundun 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose very nice impression of movement, but like Lycaon: lack of details caused by post processing --Packa 19:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overexposed parts on the gull, unsharp. Nice capture otherwise. --Atoma 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose overexposed, unsharp, artifacts --Leafnode 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support When evaluated at approximately 11"x14" @ 100dpi at a 2 foot viewing distance it looks great. The artifacts and unsharpness listed above are only visible at extreme magnifications. I have to question the assertion that this image is overexposed. Check the histogram: the highlights are not clipping. The exposure is very good given the lighting conditions. You would need to shoot this in film or perhaps a FujiFilm S5 to get the kind of highlight dynamic range that is being complained about. We probably have too many black-gull featured pictures, such as this, this, and this but this is also pretty nice. Since it is not in flight (like the other FPs) it does add some educational value in addition to its artistic value. -- Ram-Man 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

   Comment overexposure is not visible on histogram because image was darkened, but it can be clearly seen on even 100% magnification. About your other comments - yes, downsized and seen from 2 feet it could be fine (but it isn't, because of overexposure), but it's FP, not "if we watch the image from proper distance, blurred, squinting at it etc. FP images should be outstanding from the rest, not "not worse than some other". --Leafnode 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  Darkened or not, there is pixel information above the threshold for the parts of the image that appear to be overexposed. The histogram is not clipped at those highlights. At 100% magnification the image would be 20"x30" at the 100dpi that I view at, which is of overly large size. Based on your comment, I looked at it at 100% and STILL think it looks pretty good at the same viewing distance. I think this image is good on its own, which is why I support it despite having others of the same animal (That was intended as a neutral comment). Let me clarify: the highlights could clearly benefit from more dynamic range or perhaps better in-camera contrast control, but determining proper exposure is much more complicated. Would exposing less result in more noise or a background that was too dark? I'm not denying the loss of detail in the highlights only that I don't think the image would be improved by lowering the exposure. -- Ram-Man 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  It's very easy to determine whether it's overexposed or not: using any software select color range with zero tolerance using brightest pixels from gull's wing or stomach - it's not possible, that so many pixels would have identical color without being overexposed. Determining proper exposure is much more complicated - of course, but I'm not saying that some virtual photo would be good - I'm saying what's wrong with this picture. And to me this picture has technical flaws (visible from distance or using magnifying glass), which FP shouldn't have. For me - EOT. --Leafnode 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --Karelj 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose purple fringing, overexposure, and non-ascii file name. --Digon3 16:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)