Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) female (IMGP1648r1).jpg

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

File:Common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) female (IMGP1648r1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2023 at 09:35:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) female

Alternative Version[edit]

  •  Info Alternative version with more sharpening, as described in the discussion above. @LexKurochkin: You wrote above that you would like to nominate both versions to compare opinions. This is possible by using an “Alternative version” section in the nomination, as here. It makes counting the votes etc. more complicated, but it allows people to express their preferences for one (or both) of the versions. (I had to remove the small photo of the alternative from the discussion above and to change it to a mere link, the photo is now present here in larger size.) Hope it helps, --Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support both versions. ----Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Both are good; this version is better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Either version is good, but I find the alternative more harmonious. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like this better, too. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Famberhorst, XRay, Agnes Monkelbaan, Mister rf, and Llez: Dear voters on the original version, right now we have a difficult voting situation with this image. Some people consider the alternative version as superior, but there are still more votes for the original version, and therefore at the moment the original would be promoted. Just to avoid any confusion I wanted to ask you if you could please have a look at the alternative version. Please check if you (a) like the alternative version, too (then please vote for it below of this comment), or (b) like the alternative version even better (then please vote for it and consider striking out your vote above for the original version), or (c) prefer the original version (then you got nothing to do, of course). Thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I'm not sure. This one is sharper, but it looks like oversharpened. --XRay 💬 10:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral In my opinion, this version has some problems. For a better comparison, the two images must be viewed in an editing program, as different layers. Although most of the noise on the background image and on the subject has been removed, the increase in detail is too strong, that's why there are disturbing transitions on the bird's feathers. This new processing was probably also for luminance levels, but the effect was much too oversized, so the intervention caused highlights blown out. The most visible areas are at the bird’s beak, at the bird’s feet, on the rocks, and even at the bird's eyes. The increase in sharpness create some areas with white pixels to be artificially introduced where they did not exist before, so apparently the level of chrominance decreases, so the natural effect of the photo disappears. For the best result the solution would be a photo obtained by editing with different parameters with several layers. Mister rf (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I choose the original photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top photo is my favourite.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support The version above is not sharp enough, I opposed it. This one has the required level of sharpness and is overall fine to me, even if the transition between motif and background looks a bit unnatural. Poco a poco (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I would like to thank all the participants of this interesting and insightful discussion. Thank you very much. --LexKurochkin (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The original has 80% of the votes (8 out of 10), the alternative 100% (7 out of 7). Therefore, the alternative is promoted. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Falconidae (Falcons)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Common_kestrel_(Falco_tinnunculus)_female_(IMGP1648r1).jpg&oldid=753959359"