Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:European bee-eaters (Merops apiaster) with dragonflies.jpg

File:European bee-eaters (Merops apiaster) with dragonflies.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 17:05:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:European bee-eaters (Merops apiaster) with dragonflies.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:European bee-eaters (Merops apiaster) with dragonflies.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Coraciiformes_(Kingfishers,_Bee-eaters,_Rollers,_Motmots,_and_Todies)
•  Info This nomination does not have the technical quality in close up like most successful animal FPCs. BUT, all three bee-eaters are showing off their dragonfly lunch. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Charles (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support wow - Benh (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Ok, so you caught three of these birds, mounted them on a stick, gathered some dragonflies and carefully positioned one in each beak. I mean that is the only way this could be done. ;-) Seriously, as have been said on this forum: wow factor may occasionally take precedence over technical quality. --Cart (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support That's fantastic, whatever technical limitations it might have. Cmao20 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Boothsift 04:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support A bit soft, perhaps, but seeing this just reminds me of the hummingbirds in Clown of the Jungle. :D --Peulle (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Wow is there, but nothing is really sharp. --Ivar (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Really hard to judge, the wow factor left not much room for improvement but the technical quality is indeed clearly below the FP threshold. Given that this is a wildlife shot eventually tips the scale for a supporting vote Poco² 19:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes thanks; I see this as ideal for a magazine or newspaper article - not for printing out A3 size. And I would trade a dozen of my FPs for this one! Charles (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose Too blurry and far below the level of this existing FP--Ermell (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Question: is this level of technical quality typical of a modern lens at 500 mm? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Certainly not. Look at any of my FPs. The technical quality is not good here as I say in the introduction. With a once-in-a-lifetime wildlife action shot, you don't have time to set everything up. I was in a car (not a bad hide) and had to twist and shoot hand-held using a 400mm lens fitted with 1.4 extender. I'll take it. Charles (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for describing the circumstances. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Weak support The wow outweighs the technical flaws. Just enough. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak support: per Daniel Case --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Obviously the quality is poor but the subject itself is so unique that I can't vote otherwise. Congrats for such a shot Charles! --Podzemnik (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, I should have mentioned that this was the Gold Medal performance by the Hungarian National Team in the World Synchronized Perching Championships (Open Class). Charles (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Question Nice motive, but I don't understand the Pros for such blurring --Neptuul (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• To explain Neptuul, the FP guidelines say: "A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Each voter must make his own mind up as to whether the uniqueness of the shot and the composition outweigh the technical shortcomings. Charles (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Support: per Daniel Case --GRDN711 (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak weak support That was a clear no-go at first sight due to the terrible quality (even after reading the introduction). Then I noticed it was over 2Mpx, and thus the downsized version to the last limit brings the sharpness to a just acceptable level. And since the wow is huge, I finally think why not. The framing is large but by chance the background is nice, like painting. Overall it can make a nice postcard -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too low quality to be FP. --Rbrechko (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Info: Image updated after the end of the voting period, please consider all the reviews above in relation with the previous version. -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Order_:_Coraciiformes_(Kingfishers,_Bee-eaters,_Rollers,_Motmots,_and_Todies)