Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tui 06.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Tui 06.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2009 at 21:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)- Info A bird with real character, Tui aggressively chase off other birds even trying it on with much larger birds like Kākā (who ignore them :-). This bird has ruffled up its feathers giving it a bigger than usual appearance and is squawking very loudly (and raucously). Other nectar feeders such as Bellbirds and Hihi must wait for the Tui to leave before they get a feed. Tui are often perceived as black birds with a white bow-tie, but there are iridescent greens and blues along with brown in their plumage. Another feature is the strange white curls on the back of the neck and back. The beak is covered with yellow flax pollen grains, tui are important pollinators of flax flowers. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)- Support Interesting bird, good quality, and interesting and informative info!--Mbz1 (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment I find the background somewhat distracting. Also, the composition leaves something to be desired (especially as the main subject is right at the centre of the image).--Petritap (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think you will find that most FPs of profile views of whole birds basically have the bird in the centre of the frame, there really isn't much choice unless you want lots of empty space in the frame - which people then complain about :-). As it happens, I usually aim to frame these photos with the eye of the bird near one of the intersections as defined by the rule of thirds. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Regretful oppose. The bird is really interesting to look at, but the head is blurry and the background is distracting. -- JovanCormac 14:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- The background question is an interesting one - en:WP appear to prefer the fashion of having a completely burred background so that you can't see what is there. I think that is useful for the 'specimen' picture in the info box on en:wp:animal pages due to their small size, but in general I prefer to see an animal in its natural environment, some real context. I think that some would prefer all insect pictures, for example, to be studio shots with a neutral background, all too sterile for me :-). Someone has produced a blurred background version of this photo, I might post it as an alternative to see if that pleases people more :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quaity image, but not enough for FP. --Karel (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality. —kallerna™ 21:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose If I had taken this shot, I would have uploaded it for is value, but not nominated it on FP because of the poor quality. Lycaon (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support Intrigued at least by two opposes above, one which cites lack of quality & the other which says it is a good quality image. The bird itself & its perch are sharp. The blurred background has the effect of emphasising the subject which is right to me. --Herby talk thyme 13:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- The bird's head is not "sharp", it is blurred. Look at the eye, look at the beak at full resolution please. -- Petritap (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The beak is moving as it crys out. I actually thought the main problem there was that the face was not well lit. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Abstain --Avala (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- You might as well tell us what you like, and what you dislike about it :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
