Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish original n.jpg

File:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish original n.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2009 at 03:27:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish original n.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish original n.jpg

•  Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but IMO too unsharp, lots of CA and bad framing. —kallerna™ 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is an action shot, that shows motion. Could you please point me out to CA (I do not see it) and be more specific about fraiming (I could fix it). Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support The fish that one of the cormorans carries in its beak makes the picture exceptional enough to excuse the slight quality problems. -- JovanCormac 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You call this right wing of the left bird a "slight quality" problem!? --AngMoKio (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose I think most of the issues brought up on previous vote on other version of this image are still valid. Also this version introduced new errors: why the bird on the left has its left wing cut at its base? It wasn't like that on the original, so it's probably bad photomanipulation - and that's another point to oppose for, as I'd like to vote for a photograph, not a clone stamp. --Leafnode✉ 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not "bad photomanipulation", it is good photomanipulation, and retouched template|manual cloning was added to the image, as soon as it was uploaded. I wanted to see, if people, who have not seen the original image will notice that "bad photomanipulation" , but I guess you had to spoil all the fun. Oh well... 

Yeah, cutting off real part of a wing is a very good photomanipulation. If not for this, it could have been quite good, but as I've seen the previous nomination, it wasn't any 'fun' for me. --Leafnode✉ 09:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry but this is for sure not a good photomanipulation. It is just another photo where you try to pimp up your photos with obvious post-processing - it really gets annoying. And to tell now that it was just a fun-project to see if people recognize it makes it even worse. FPC is not the place to do such things...you can do that at "Photography Critiques". Sometimes i wonder if people actually look at the photos they vote for. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

really? The only difference that I added retouched template, the other person did not. And how about that sea otter File:Sea otter nursing02.jpg that actually was that sea otter File:Sea otter nursing.jpg once again with no retouched template added to the image. These are only two examples of who knows how many. And how about this nomination of yours,AngMoKio? The image was taken in ZOO, but presented as it was taken in a wild, while my question about ZOO info was ignored. What have I done? Did I add an extra ring to Saturn? Did I add a new crater to the Moon? Did I changed a historic image? No, no, no. I added the wing that was cut off in the original. What has changed? Still one bird is running after another, that has the fish. It was not obvious post-processing. Even Leafnode said, if he/she did not see the original, he/she would not have never guessed. The nominaton was withdrawn. If you want to comment you could continue to do it at my talk page please.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)