Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2016 at 13:16:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
CommentA.Savin, INeverCry, I think you are being too harsh on sharpness. Many of our bird FPs are low MP such as 6MP or much less. This is 16MP from a compact camera. Downsized to 6MP version would be a fairer comparison to many FP. The crop is tight and the face in some shadow but the backlit beak is extraordinary. I can't find another photo like it. I think it shouldn't be dismissed so easily. I wonder if extending the left a little (possibly with a little creative Photoshop if no wider crop possible) and lifting the shadows might help. -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the main issues are the crop (it almost gives the visual impression that the bird's beak would straighten out a bit if he had more room) and the shadow on the face and neck. I could support the image if something like what you suggest was done about that. INeverCry20:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some sharpening artefacts at 6mpix, and given a relatively small resolution like 6mpix I may demand better quality. --A.Savin23:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - Nice picture, but I do feel the crops are tight on both the left and right. However, I completely agree with Colin on the backlit beak. Being able to see the blood vessels in the beak is amazing, and for that reason, I offer this photo mild support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the comments, I personally like the lighting - it's a matter of taste and which features one wants to highlight. I agree the crop is a little close to the end of the beak, unfortunatly the only way to extend it would be to add "background" by synthesis which I don't want to do. If that means it's not suitable for FP I'm ok with that. Cheers! Prosthetic Head (talk)
Comment I had a play with synthesising a little more background, not sure about the result and even if I can get it looking perfect I don't really like the idea of inventing pixels.Hornbill with synthetic BGProsthetic Head (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In that version, there are some strange artifacts to the left of the beak. Otherwise, I like it better, and since you're using a bokeh that blurs the boundaries of everything beyond recognition, anyway, why is it a problem for you also to fudge things by extending those blurred colors a bit to the left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Prosthetic_Head - uploaded by Prosthetic_Head - nominated by Prosthetic Head -- Prosthetic Head (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Prosthetic Head (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, the sharpness is not enough and I also would not have promoted it to QI. --A.Savin 14:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment A.Savin, INeverCry, I think you are being too harsh on sharpness. Many of our bird FPs are low MP such as 6MP or much less. This is 16MP from a compact camera. Downsized to 6MP version would be a fairer comparison to many FP. The crop is tight and the face in some shadow but the backlit beak is extraordinary. I can't find another photo like it. I think it shouldn't be dismissed so easily. I wonder if extending the left a little (possibly with a little creative Photoshop if no wider crop possible) and lifting the shadows might help. -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
