Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Wire-tailed swallow

Wire-tailed swallow, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 12:03:20 (UTC)

• 
  Parent approaching with food
• 
  Transferring the food

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Hirundinidae_.28Swallows.29
•  Info Wire-tailed swallow, Hirundo smithii, is a small passerine bird in the swallow family. It has two subspecies: H. s. smithii, which occurs throughout Africa, and H. s. filifera, which is found in southern and southeastern Asia. Created by Manojiritty - uploaded by Manojiritty - nominated by Jee -- Jee 12:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jee 12:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Request Removing that brown blur on the right side of the left image would make these two instant FP for me. --Lucasbosch 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• I had talked about it to him. It is from some tree parts. It is appreciated if someone having good processing skills help to remove it. Jee 12:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Jkadavoor: I removed it.  Support from me. --Lucasbosch 14:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Lucasbosch! Jee 15:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Manojiritty and Jee I removed the noise, if you think that it's not ok, simply revert me. Thanks --The Photographer 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Both images made my day this morning. --smial 13:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral Amazing image, however, background noise, chromatic aberration and bird aura, different light background for the images --The Photographer 18:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)  Support --The Photographer 22:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support For a photo of a bird in flight / docking, at 420mm, and at around 10MP, this has good sharpness and is an excellent catch. I can forgive the slightly noisy background from ISO 1600 which really shouldn't concern us at 10MP wildlife photo, and would rather that than crude smoothing that risks losing detail round the birds. Shame the shutter speed changed between photos, but strangely the one with the longer exposure is darker. Were they processed the same? If the raw file is available then I can have a go, but am reluctant to process the JPG any further. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Colin. He is away; will share the raw files after two days. Jee 04:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Plenty of wow-factor for me, and if Colin is good with the technical aspects, I can't see any reason not to support this impressive pair of images (and birds). lNeverCry 20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support The lighting is suboptimal, but the huge wow factor is more than enough to compensate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support ! -- KTC (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per Colin and King. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! For technical information: The different look of the two pictures is based on different WBs, so if you adapt them (the right one is colder), they look rather similar. And there is some CA. --PtrQs (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment The white balance seems to be off. Otherwise great images! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC) 
•  Support - I thought about this for a long time, and ultimately, I agree with the others that capturing a great moment like this is worth a little motion blur, which I figure is unavoidable in this situation, anyway. But harmonizing the white balance of photos taken just a moment apart would be the right thing to do, in my opinion, if you can do it without damaging anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• We'll get the raw files and hope we can solve that issue soon. Jee 11:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Colin, I just mailed you the raw files. Please check. Jee 03:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Just at the right moment, excellent --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support--Gnosis (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Jee has sent me the raw files. I had a go at reprocessing them and sent him some draft copies, which he liked. I have fixed the issue where the exposure level is inconsistent, and also cropped them both such that the second picture is positioned relative to the first. I have lightend the exposure a little for both, as it seemed a bit under-exposed (shout now if you feel the exposure is currently correct). I haven't uploaded anything as I still have to Photoshop out the brown blur on the RHS of each, and hope to find time for that tonight. -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please @Colin: , could you upload the raw files to commons archive Thanks --The Photographer 12:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:The Photographer you will have to ask the creator, Manojiritty, to do that. And most people don't upload their raw photos as it lets them retain some ownership. -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I underestand, sorry --The Photographer 12:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I've uploaded a new version of both files, with permission, with exposure and framing aligned between the images. The images are a little different as no two people will process a file the same way. You may have to refresh your browser's cached copy of the image with Ctrl-F5 or similar. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor, Lucasbosch, The Photographer, Smial, and INeverCry: @Livioandronico2013, King of Hearts, Martin Falbisoner, KTC, and Christian Ferrer: @Jacek Halicki, Uoaei1, -donald-, Daniel Case, and PtrQs: @Johann Jaritz, Frank Schulenburg, Ikan Kekek, Tomascastelazo, and Michielverbeek: @Gnosis, Jacopo Werther, and Schnobby: -- Colin (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Great job! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Great rework. Thx Colin. Now I have a problem when it comes to POTY 2017. Which should I choose? --smial 23:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanks on behalf of Manoj too. Jee 03:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Now that Colin has reprocessed the images -- Thennicke (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--The Photographer 13:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes