Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mute Swan at High Park 01.jpg

File:Mute Swan at High Park 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2023 at 23:00:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Mute Swan at High Park 01.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mute Swan at High Park 01.jpg

467

3573

1973

880

4000

6000

strange yellow-green artefacts along the outline of the bird — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDom (talk • contribs)

1627

4027

960

827

4000

6000

There is now a line along the top of the body feathers introduced during the first edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs)

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Cygnus
•  Info Tried to take a portrait of a Mute Swan. All by --Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Background is too distracting. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Ermell: Should I try making the bg blur manually?--Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• The effort is not worth it.--Ermell (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose ... and the eye should be sharp. Oversaturated. Crop is too tight. Cannot make any helpful suggestions without EXIF. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Charlesjsharp: Tried following your suggestions is it better now? Also is there any manual way to include the exif? Camera manufacturer NIKON CORPORATION

Camera model NIKON D3500

Exposure time 1/1,000 sec (0.001)

F-number f/6.3

ISO speed rating 100

Date and time of data generation 03:45, 22 July 2022

Lens focal length 300 mm

--Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• @BigDom: Thanks for the review, tried to fix the area. Is it better now?--Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• See my new note - you've introduced an artificial line during editing. I really don't think you should spend hours trying to work on this. Swans are common but it is tricky to photograph white feathers. With the light you had F8 and ISO 400/800 would have possibly worked better. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Fabian Roudra Baroi: Sorry, realised I left the note and forgot to write a comment here the first time around. It's better although like Charles says there's now an artificial grey line instead. I think there are definitely positives in the picture (I quite like the crop that focuses on the "interesting" parts of the bird, like the neck and head) but given the quality issues and the other votes so far, I don't think it has much chance of being promoted to FP this time, sorry. BigDom (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose poor crop and background. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral Good photo but claustrophobic crop. --Explodingcreepsr (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting background and tight crop -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Weak support per Explodingcreepsr. --Wieggy (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose The exposure is decent for an all-white bird, the sharpness is good enough, and I'm more tolerant of some others when it comes to backgrounds, but there are some artifacts (which may be fixable), and most importantly I can't get past the crop/composition, sorry. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't mind the composition that much; unfortunately I think the other opposes understate the extent to which the technically deficient areas (the back and front of the head) are irremediably overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 09:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)