Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asian pied starlings (Gracupica contra).jpg

File:Asian pied starlings (Gracupica contra).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2017 at 11:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Asian pied starlings (Gracupica contra).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asian pied starlings (Gracupica contra).jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info Wouldn't you love to know all the latest gossip? All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support maybe a bit oversharpened but very cute --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Good focus to the birds, nice composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral Nice composition, however, posterization in background, jpeg artifacts, low quality generalized (maybe because camera quality or lens quality) --The Photographer 19:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • both camera and lens are absolutely state-of-the-art... —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe 8f is too much and 400mm too far. IMHO this low quality is acceptable only when the birds are movement, for example this one --The Photographer 16:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Obviously some sharpening is present, could get it - 400mm, but foreground and back could be redone some. At least middle part between the birds. --Mile (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sharpening in Photoshop CS6 was Unsharp Mask Radius 1 Pixel; ammount 50% Theshold 0. Charles (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Agree the quality is a bit unfavorable in full size, perhaps because 1/500s was still too long at 400mm. However, the composition with these open beaks face to face is very nice, and the background color highlights the subjects -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Tempered support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I could nitpick some things but as much as I criticize the "wow effect" this is the reason it's there. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - "Hey! Would you shut up while I'm talking?" I agree with others that the moment you captured overrides the degree of unsharpness, which is greater than usual for your bird FP nominations but not at all bad. If you know which one is the male and which one is the female (my guess: the male is on our left), or if they're both male and both female, please indicate that in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, can't tell the difference. And as you say, the technical quality is not quite as good as a typical portrait shot. But it's more fun, though not quite Tower-of-London-Raven fun. Charles (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support My opinion: both female. "Get away from my nest! Don't bother my eggs!" --Schnobby (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 11:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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