Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pterodroma mollis light morph - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg

File:Pterodroma mollis light morph - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2019 at 03:31:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pterodroma mollis light morph - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pterodroma mollis light morph - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison -- JJ Harrison (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - Dramatic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! The waves so close below make all the difference. – Lucas 06:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Ermell (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cart (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support The wave! --Podzemnik (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Nice shot. Ahmad^talk 09:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Hockei (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Great shot! --Yann (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose overprocessed. The sharpness of the bird vs the blurry background looks very artificial (try to magnify the tail, it is visible here). Additionally, the processing of the first and second waves is visible too. I think it is too much (only my taste of course)...--Jebulon (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  weak support only weak as per Jebulon --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support.--Vulphere 16:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Boothsift 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support A fine shot. Cmao20 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not enough quality (per Jebulon). And please add location category too. --A.Savin 01:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  Btw: Is it just me, to whom the picture appears like a photoshop montage? The size of the bird is somewhat way too big in relation to the wave? --A.Savin 01:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

First I also thought so. But there similar photographs of the uploader, therefore I think it's not photoshoped. No evidence but a hint. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The edge of the wave looks astonishingly sharp to me. It is the same with the edges of the bird. It appears slightly artificial to mee, too. But I'm not familiar with the area, where the image was made. I would like to see the unprocessed original and then compare the two. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I have discussed the photographic techniques he uses with JJ Harrison because I cannot replicate them with my equipment. He says it is because he uses a prime lens (which I don't have). He says that he does not use software to alter backgrounds - e.g. blurring. So still a mystery to me. Charles (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Enough with the bad faith. JJ Harrison is one of our most esteemed bird photographers, I can't imagine why he would resort to montage. I'd write this up as a very lucky shot combined with great photo skills unless the author himself says otherwise. Besides there is color reflection from the bird on the wave and that is very hard to photoshop. --Cart (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Who are you accusing of bad faith Cart? Charles (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not you Charles, don't worry, you seem to have an open mind about this. But if you read the comments you see that some users have expressed suspicions about this ("background looks very artificial", "I would like to see the unprocessed original", "appears like a photoshop montage", "No evidence but a hint"). I'd say that is bad faith wrt to JJ Harrison being honest about his photos. A.Savin has even emailed the photographer to obtain proof that this is real (see comment below). He is of course within his right to do so, but I think it is bad form among colleagues. This is like the time I was accused of pasting a moon just because it was too well photographed. --Cart (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. But I don't see any problem in the questioning. I too asked JJ for out-of-camera RAW during the FP nomination on English Wikipedia. There are no hard-and-fast rules here about the level of manipulation we should accept, so surely doubters have a right to ask? Charles (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, they have the "right to ask". For myself, I prefer to live by 'Assume Good Faith' with seasoned FPC-ers. But as per your comment, here is the link to the en-wiki discussion with JJ's own comments. --Cart (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Info I also had a look on the forum on Flickr with photos taken with the same big lens. They resemble this very much. This $11,000 lens make sharp birds against incredibly smooth backgrounds. --Cart (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've requested raw file per wikimail. I would convince myself it's true and also try a better post-process --A.Savin 11:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  @JJ Harrison: Any response? --A.Savin 22:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Support This image depicts not only the frothy wave beneath the impressive underside of this petrel, but also the crest of a wave towering in the distance. The image was thus taken in a wave trough looking steeply upwards and that explains an EXIF data item one would not normally expect for an image obviously taken above the water surface: "Altitude: 4 meters below sea level". -- Franz van Duns (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Not bad quality for an action shot, and spectacular image. I zoomed at 200% with photoshop, I'm not convinced that it is a photomontage. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 10:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support It may have been sharpened a bit more than I would have, but that doesn't ruin the image enough for me to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too unrealistic, looks like a photomontage --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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