Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Young night heron.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Young night heron.jpg, featured[edit]
Info created by Calibas - uploaded by Calibas - nominated by Calibas --Calibas 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Support --Calibas 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)- Support Very nice detail. Would you mind telling me what lens you used (specific model) and at what distance you took the picture? Also did you use manual or autofocus? I was out today trying my 70-300mm on birds and I couldn't get close enough to get that kind of detail, plus focus wasn't all that great (manual was somewhat better surprisingly, but still pretty bad as this was the best I could muster). Dori | Talk 19:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I used the 70-300 IS USM for this picture, was about 5 ft (1.5m) away and used autofocus. This was at a bird sanctuary in Lake Merritt where people normally feed the birds so these are pretty much tame. I actually had to back up to get the shot. Calibas 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent! -- MJJR 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support it must have been his 70-300 IS as written on his user page. I also have this lense and i love it :) --AngMoKio 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent sharpness! At 300mm, IS or not, tripod or not, an outstanding picture like this you don't get from just releasing the shutter! --JDrewes 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Though I would like to see a picture of the whole bird - Alvesgaspar 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support ! - Benh 20:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 21:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wow. --Digon3 talk 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Holy cow that's sharp JaGa 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Razor-sharp! --LucaG 19:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wwelles14 19:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support I join the choir of supporters -- Slaunger 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Leafnode 06:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good --Richard Bartz 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Chrumps 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 03:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Sharp details. --Egg 11:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is probably one of the sharpest photos I have ever seen. Doodle-doo Ħ 15:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Going against the tide here but oh well. Poor composition (body cut off too much - too much empty space top of image which could have been better used to get more body). Noise at full res. Not sharp at all. Seriously, i can't belive the comments this is getting praising its sharpness - have you looked at it full res? It's not sharp at all!! And compared to images like that taken by Diliff etc it baffles the mind that it is being hailed as "razor sharp" etc. Please ppl look at it full res! --Fir0002 www 01:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- While I'm not making the claim that it's razor sharp, saying it's not sharp at all is ridiculous. Calibas 01:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sheesh. Yeah, I second the motion - you're going a bit overboard with the condemnation there, Fir0002. It's a striking, beautiful, sharp picture, and frankly I like what the blue in the background adds to the shot and wouldn't want it cropped. Not being Diliff isn't a justification for Oppose (yet). JaGa 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- No I stick by my comment - it isn't sharp. I'm not saying it's blurry but It's not sharp. And I wouldn't have brought this up except for comment such as "Excellent sharpness", "Holy cow that's sharp", "Razor-sharp!", "Sharp details." and even "This is probably one of the sharpest photos I have ever seen"!! Look at least on this image full res: Image:Young night heron temp.jpg and please don't tell me that those areas show exemplary sharpness. Image:Young night heron downsampled sharpened.jpg shows much better sharpness but even that I wouldn't go overboard from. With regards to composition - that too I think can be improved, the bg is nice but less cutting off of the neck at the bottom would be far preferable to the empty space up top. --Fir0002 www 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your work on it is an improvement, but you could've made your points without being so condescending. "Not sharp at all!!!" is a little over the top, don't you think? Your Oppose statement didn't have a friendly "I think this could be improved" tone to it; it had a harsh "I can't believe everyone likes this sucky picture" tone. But it isn't too late to make amends :) How did you sharpen it, and how did you decide how much to downsample? JaGa 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- It might have been over the top, but conversely IMO so is "Holy cow that's sharp" et al - which was really what I was responding too. I apologize if any offence was taken from my comments, however as I've mentioned elsewhere I've felt for some time now that standards were slipping a bit on commons and since no one else seemed to have commented on my concern (in fact a large majority were quite the opposite) I felt it was necessary to come out somewhat strongly. I do think it's a nice picture, however, and I need to tread carefully here so I don't (re?)offend the photographer, I don't think it's quite FP level and certainly not (again IMO) worthy of the level of support it got. I sharpened by applying a smart sharpen to the full res pic with a fairly large radius (~2.5px from memory) and then applying another finer sharpen a sharpening script I have (the core sharpen resulting from unsharp mask at ~1.0px). I didn't choose the downsample amount for any particular reason other than it was fairly substantial (~50%) and is what I downsample my images to --Fir0002 www 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think we've firmly established that sharp is a relative term : ) . Thank you for the comments I will keep them in mind. Calibas 03:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your work on it is an improvement, but you could've made your points without being so condescending. "Not sharp at all!!!" is a little over the top, don't you think? Your Oppose statement didn't have a friendly "I think this could be improved" tone to it; it had a harsh "I can't believe everyone likes this sucky picture" tone. But it isn't too late to make amends :) How did you sharpen it, and how did you decide how much to downsample? JaGa 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- No I stick by my comment - it isn't sharp. I'm not saying it's blurry but It's not sharp. And I wouldn't have brought this up except for comment such as "Excellent sharpness", "Holy cow that's sharp", "Razor-sharp!", "Sharp details." and even "This is probably one of the sharpest photos I have ever seen"!! Look at least on this image full res: Image:Young night heron temp.jpg and please don't tell me that those areas show exemplary sharpness. Image:Young night heron downsampled sharpened.jpg shows much better sharpness but even that I wouldn't go overboard from. With regards to composition - that too I think can be improved, the bg is nice but less cutting off of the neck at the bottom would be far preferable to the empty space up top. --Fir0002 www 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- If we have to consider perfect sharpness (especially on bird subjects), I'd have to go with Mdf's shots, and this one is on par with them. Maybe not the sharpest, but sharp enough for FP all the same. Dori - Talk 02:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes Mdf has some terrific shots - I recently discovered another bird photography, en:User:Wwcsig who also takes superb bird shots --Fir0002 www 03:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- If we have to consider perfect sharpness (especially on bird subjects), I'd have to go with Mdf's shots, and this one is on par with them. Maybe not the sharpest, but sharp enough for FP all the same. Dori - Talk 02:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured --Simonizer 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
