Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flamants à Thyna (Sfax).jpg

File:Flamants à Thyna (Sfax).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2024 at 23:07:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Flamants à Thyna (Sfax).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flamants à Thyna (Sfax).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phoenicopteridae (Flamingos)
•  Info created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by TOUMOU -- TOUMOU (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Support -- TOUMOU (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Support A bit dark/underexposed but good nevertheless. Cmao20 (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Support ★ 13:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Seems a tad too dark for me but is otherwise excellent.--Ermell (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment Yes it is a bit dark and needs better processing to make it less 'faded'. Nice PoV from water level, but I would ask photographer to crop the blurred bottom. May not be tilted in reality, but a very small rotation would help. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose Not done. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support Works for me overall but I'd add some brightness Poco a poco (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak support yes from me under condition of some adjustments (exposure, contrast, white balance), I would also ask photographer to crop the blurred bottom and a little from the left to center the subject Chepry (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Too underexposed as it is currently. Like the composition, agree with Charles that it could do with a small rotation. Would definitely consider supporting once it's brightened up a bit. BigDom (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose per above. -- Ivar (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment @Cmao20, TOUMOU, Ermell, Charlesjsharp, Poco a poco, Chepry, BigDom, and Iifar: Here is a slightly edited version – rotated a little bit to remove the (apparent) tilt, cropped (especially at the bottom) and brightened up while also increasing the contrast a bit. What do you think? Hope it helps, – Aristeas (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Interesting result. Now the heads and the sky are slightly too bright for my taste.Ermell (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm good to go with edited version. -- Ivar (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment @Ermell and Iifar: Thank you for your feedback! I have reduced the extreme highlights a bit; and additionally removed some minor CAs. – Further comments? Should the edited version be offered as an alternative? Best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Thank you Aristeas. You are entitled to part of the WLE prize. The more I look at the picture the more I realise that the bokeh was added by the photographer. But I can't see why the little black line on the neck of the fourth flamingo was not removed or what it is. Perhaps an antenna for the remote control? :-)Ermell (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Thank you! ;–) Actually I wanted to remove that black line (and another one at the beak of the 6th flamingo), but I thought people could complain about that. But now that you mention it, I have removed both. – Regarding the bokeh I am not sure; it’s a 500mm shot from far away with a distant background, but at ƒ/10, so IMHO the bokeh could look that way. (We had a similar debate about some of JJ Harrison’s bird photos, e.g. here and in other nominations. Therefore I am cautious about that suspicion. At least I cannot find obvious masking errors which are the usual sign for background blur added in post.) – Aristeas (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose per BigDom. – Aristeas (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Sorry to clutter this nomination with my comments, but there was a problem with the nomination time frame. TOUMOU has created this nomination subpage on 3 April 2024‎, but it was added only on 9 April 2024‎ to the list of active nominations. Because of this the nomination period would have been way too short: the bot would have closed this nomination on 12 Apr 2024 at 07:15:28 (UTC), that would be only 5 days instead of the regular 9 days. I have taken the liberty to repair this by copying the internal FPVotingPeriodFlag flag value and the corresponding end date from this nomination which was added to the list of active nominations only some minutes before this nomination. Therefore way this nomination will run for the regular period of 9 days. Hope it helps, – Aristeas (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  So why has it been promoted? Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I do not understand that, too; it seems the bot does not rely only on the value in the {{FPVotingPeriodFlag}} template, but on the creation date of the nomination subpage. Obviously I must do more research on the bot’s behaviour. In any case this is against the rules. – Aristeas (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Support -- El Golli Mohamed 14:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment The bokeh is natural.I was lying on the ground and it looks like this. I never touch bokeh .El Golli Mohamed 14:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Palauenc05 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Phoenicopteridae (Flamingos)

•  Comment Sorry, but I had to strike out this result. The bot did close this nomination way too early. It should end on 17 Apr 2024 around 23:25 (UTC) and not earlier because the nomination has become public and active only on 23:25 (UTC), 8 April 2024‎. I thought fixing the value of the {{FPVotingPeriodFlag}} would tell the bot to do the right thing but it did not. So the only solution I know to stop the bot from closing this nomination too early again and again is to re-create it from scratch as a new /2 nomination and to close it manually when the time has come. Please continue the discussion on the new nomination. This one is kept for archival purposes. – Aristeas (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)