Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Uhu-Bubo-Bubo-Falknerhof-Lenggries-2010.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Uhu-Bubo-Bubo-Falknerhof-Lenggries-2010.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2013 at 20:04:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Currently only one other Bubo Bubo (eagle owl) is featured on Commons, but it is only a side portrayal. The nominated photo is a complete head portrayal where both eyes and the beak are visible. -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)- Support Is it a bit too red? JKadavoor Jee 07:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Info I've selectively removed the red cast on the left. Do you think it is better that way? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The detail is FP level, the subject and crop are also interesting to me, but the lighting ruins it. There is overexposure on the head and the left side of the owl is in shadow vs the right side. A "portrait" under these conditions is not FP, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your detailed review. I see your point with the light and shadow, but I disagree with your implication. A good portrayal is not one where the face / head is homogeneously lightened. The one here is no sterile studio repro photography. In classical portrayal ligtning you have one side of the face brighter than the other. See for instance the very good outdoor portrayal by The Photographer.
Done The overexposure was very marginal (imho no less of detail) but I've corrected it now. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am not convinced. The example you showed me was to me no FP, either. Sorry, but to me having one side brigther than the other ruins it, as said. Poco a poco (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your detailed review. I see your point with the light and shadow, but I disagree with your implication. A good portrayal is not one where the face / head is homogeneously lightened. The one here is no sterile studio repro photography. In classical portrayal ligtning you have one side of the face brighter than the other. See for instance the very good outdoor portrayal by The Photographer.
Question what's with the pinkish tinge? --SuperJew (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it came from a semi transparent roofing in that color. Done I've again tried to work on the slight color cast and on the overall lightning. IMHO it is better now. Do you (and Poco) agree? --Tuxyso (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it came from a semi transparent roofing in that color.
- Oppose that pinkish tinge --SuperJew (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Have you done a cache refresh? Probably the falconer used pink color spray :) If someone can do a better correction I am open minded to it. For me (probably depends on the quality and setting of the monitor) is is barely perceptible. Compared to the other Bubo Bubo head portrayals this one is (imho) very good. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
