Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Fledging Bald Eagle.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image:Fledging Bald Eagle.jpg

[edit]

Newly Fledged Juvenile Bald Eagle

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small and too noisy Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed! Except the clipped wing feathers on the left side. Keep in mind this is a wild raptor, not a rescue bird in a sanctuary. Being able to get so close, particularly at this tender young age, is extremely challenging! PS: am I allowed to remove the big yellow objection box? --KetaDesign
  •  Oppose low resolution cannot be solved by upsampling --Romwriter (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boy I sure don't know what you mean by 'low resolution'. When I look at it in full size it's perfectly clear, right down to the twinkling eyeball and the curled toes. Perhaps I'm missing something in the technical aspect? --KetaDesign
    • The image as you originally uploaded it is 1700x1411 (1.9Mpx, just under the 2Mpx required for all but very exceptional images); the current version is painfully obviously just the original resampled to the larger size in a futile attempt to disguise this. Unfortunately this is an anisotropic process; one cannot add detail by upsampling, one can only remove detail by downsampling. And when I look at the larger image in full size it's even more unsharp than the one I recently FPXed for that reason. -- Korax1214 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK I knew you were going to say something like that, but waited until you actually did so you would prove you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. What I did was go back to the original scan (which is 108MB) and edit it all over again. OK? Smartie.

If anyone actually wants to be helpful about this, a large size, unedited version is here Image:Babybaldeagle-05sep6.jpg . I would appreciate any tips on how to render it properly, because I know it's high res enough and I have a lot of awesome eagle photos I'd like to share.-- KetaDesign (talk)

        •  Comment this is supposed to be a vote, not a mini-war, but I'd just like to point out that barbed comments such as the above don't help one's cause one bit. For the record, I'd like to point out that I actually did look at the full-size image, and saw for myself that it's horribly unsharp, so the allegation that I "have no idea what [I am] talking about" is unwarranted. -- Korax1214 (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Comment Right, because telling me my "futile attempt" at something which I in fact did not try to do is not a barbed comment.-- KetaDesign (talk)
            •  Comment It's clear that you need to read the Rules at the top of this page before you attempt another FPC nom (it's you who chose to misinterpret my technical comments on the picture quality as a personal attack); also look up "hypocrite" in a dictionary while you're at it. This is the second time you've resorted to an ad hominem instead of arguing your case properly, which just reinforces my conviction that you haven't actually got a case. Speaking of which, this nom is overdue for closure (it's been more than 24 hours since the FPX, and nobody but the nominator has contested it), so someone kindly do so. -- Korax1214 (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              •  Comment My very first comment above after my re-edited image was still being opposed asked for help, as the NORMAL people below were kind enough to offer. Your conviction, or lack thereof, is rather irrelevant.-- KetaDesign (talk)
  •  Oppose per all above. -- Korax1214 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The same picture with better technical quality would have been very nice (I like the composition), but the removal of the noise by changing the background is quite obvious (that's my guess on the edit that was done on the picture) on the feathers at the end of the wings, and it's visible on the entire body at 100% zoom (for a 1.9 mpx picture, details must be observed at 100% zoom). As well, a lot of details have been lost by removing the noise from the bird; the full resolution is sharper. --S23678 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I've made an edit here: Image:Fledging_Bald_Eagle_edit1.jpg, but it's even worse...--Base64 (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Thanks for trying! I think I might have to rescan these; the images are good quality and close up, it's just the noise from the scan that's bothering everyone.-- KetaDesign (talk)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Fledging_Bald_Eagle.jpg&oldid=164712065"