Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common kingfisher in Japan, December 2023 - 4925.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Common kingfisher in Japan, December 2023 - 4925.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2023 at 07:41:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Intentional motion blur
Info A kingfisher rolling and slamming a small fish onto the branch. c/u/n by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Laitche (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, no. All too common to take these shots. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Charlesjsharp, This one is easier shot for me :) --Laitche (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: Let's see what others say. I am assuming more than half of the members ignore this ;-) --Laitche (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Shot is interesting, teling a story. So its beating that fish by the wood. Maybe video. --Mile (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Great action shot! I haven't seen any like this here on Commons before. Capturing motion blur in good way is also about getting some good lines into that photo or it will not work. Here you have a circular motion that is very pleasing. This could also be a candidate for the new gallery Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Styles and Techniques#Intentional motion blur if you prefer that. It's up to you. --Cart (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Cart
Done --Laitche (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Cart
- Support as per Cart. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 00:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose It could have been amazing if the bird had been frozen at high speed. But here the fish is difficult to discern. Precisely because of the blur, the bud of the branch can be assimilated to an extension of this fish. This nomination had the same settings (1/60 sec) thus I suppose the effect (blur) was more unexpected than "intentional". The background seems cluttered and the two blurry branches behind are very distracting, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Basile Morin: Thanks for the comment and thinking carefully. Yes, that two shots are same shutter speed, but what if I was aiming this shot first? :) --Laitche (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Can't prove the contrary of course, the only sure thing in that case is that this one is unexpectedly a success :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I cannot control a wild kingfisher... --Laitche (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, only the camera you can control. Low speed definitely allows you to lower the ISO, but perhaps in this situation another view point would have been preferable, or a quicker shutter speed -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment I think that every photographer has to rely on sheer luck and serendipity to a certain extent. Sometimes we get good shots that we weren't expecting.;-) The "intentional" can also be seen as the choice to keep and display a photo with motion blur (or some other chance thing that improves the compo), rather than just deleting it from camera. --Cart (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I totally agree with what you're saying. And in that case, if the goal was to capture an "intentional blur", then the other picture, sharp at relatively low speed + high distance + low ISO, is an incredible (unexpected) success. That's maybe why photography is an activity full of surprises / discovery. But at the same time, some distracting elements also enter in the composition, where a painting / drawing would have been spared. I think the bud, and the vertical branch behind, are really misplaced, it is bad luck. I have no personal conviction on the idea of deleting this type of image or not. Some participants seem to be more tolerant of the flaws highlighted. These differences in judgment can constitute indicators. The motion blur may not be trash, it's just not the best example in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Everyone has their own opinion so vote is yours, of course :) --Laitche (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Gorgeous action pic. The motion blur is beautiful, giving the real feeling of the movement. --Selbymay (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Just fuzzy image of some bird, no any reason for FP nomination, IHMO -- Karelj (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose I think my problem with it is that it's too blurry for me to be able to tell what's going on without the caption, but not blurry enough to be fully an abstract artwork as opposed to an illustrative photo. I think it was a really good try though and I'd love to see any future shots that use a similar idea Cmao20 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Cmao20, Like this one? :) --Laitche (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Intentionally or coincidentally is not a point, imho. Please vote as this be. :-) --Laitche (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Cmao20 --Tagooty (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support Interesting and not common to me. I can see what is going on, and I think sometimes it's fine to require captions. However, if this is voted down here, I think it's a valuable image in the right scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Subject is way too blurry and I say this as someone who is more lenient on technical quality. Could potentially be a candidate for VI, but not FP material. --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
