Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red billed gull-07.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Red billed gull-07.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 May 2009 at 22:57:19
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Maybe he won't see me if I tip-toe past ... -- Tony Wills (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)- Support LOL
--Muhammad (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 
Oppose Underexposed and soft, which isn't so good for a common bird. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Underexposed? Check the histogram :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- The histogram only confirms the underexposure. On the order of (200,200,200) is far to dark for white feathers in what appears to be sunlight. Take that as what I'd call correctly exposed for a very similar species. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we are talking about different things. The photograph exposure is fine as far as I can see, there is detail from the deep black to bright white feathers (eg those on the wings as seen at the tail end). The head is facing away from the sun and is not bright white, nor should it be, and the exposure allows a lot of plumage detail to be seen. So looking at the colour distribution histogram, there is little at either extreme (under or over exposed). You can of course get a more pleasing, brighter, picture by pulling in the ends of the histogram (and under or over exposing a few unimportant pixels :-). The motion blur (some from the wind, some from the birds movement) muddies a lot of the detail though. Your example appears to be heavily processed, and a lot of the head and breast are over exposed, and much detail is lost (just white), despite the actual pixel brightness values having being pulled back to the 230 to 250 range. I would like to have seen the original, unprocessed version.
- Not extensively post processed at all, just a correct, in camera, exposure compensation setting. A small amount of sharpening and maybe some noise reduction on the background was performed. 230-255 doesn't constitute lost detail, unless you have a monitor calibration issue. The histogram on your image is essentially telling you that the bird ranges from middle grey to light grey. As the plumage would be described as white and light grey, the image is underexposed. Taking a simpler example, if you took an image of white snow and had a similarly centred histogram, the snow would appear grey and it would be underexposed. You do have to worry about not going too far at either extreme as you say, but there is plenty of latitude for flicking the exposure compensation in this case. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- So you are complaining that one part of the scene (the white plumage on the birds head etc) is not as bright as you would like. It is not bright white in the photograph, because it is not bright white in the scene! The scene is appropriately exposed! The bright white parts of the scene (wing feathers at the tail end) are bright white in the photo. Your complaint is one of lighting, or that I haven't cranked up the exposure or tweeked the brightness to make that part of the scene brighter. Your example, taken with a flash, has artificially altered the lighting, which is probably why it looks to be over bright and lacking detail in the areas previously mentioned :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not extensively post processed at all, just a correct, in camera, exposure compensation setting. A small amount of sharpening and maybe some noise reduction on the background was performed. 230-255 doesn't constitute lost detail, unless you have a monitor calibration issue. The histogram on your image is essentially telling you that the bird ranges from middle grey to light grey. As the plumage would be described as white and light grey, the image is underexposed. Taking a simpler example, if you took an image of white snow and had a similarly centred histogram, the snow would appear grey and it would be underexposed. You do have to worry about not going too far at either extreme as you say, but there is plenty of latitude for flicking the exposure compensation in this case. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- In that vein, I have resolved to upload the original, unadulterated, version of all my future contributions. And then, as with this one, upload my idea of 'improvements' over top. That way people can have the original to play with to their hearts content, though I would prefer that they upload their 'improvements' as separate images :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we are talking about different things. The photograph exposure is fine as far as I can see, there is detail from the deep black to bright white feathers (eg those on the wings as seen at the tail end). The head is facing away from the sun and is not bright white, nor should it be, and the exposure allows a lot of plumage detail to be seen. So looking at the colour distribution histogram, there is little at either extreme (under or over exposed). You can of course get a more pleasing, brighter, picture by pulling in the ends of the histogram (and under or over exposing a few unimportant pixels :-). The motion blur (some from the wind, some from the birds movement) muddies a lot of the detail though. Your example appears to be heavily processed, and a lot of the head and breast are over exposed, and much detail is lost (just white), despite the actual pixel brightness values having being pulled back to the 230 to 250 range. I would like to have seen the original, unprocessed version.
- The histogram only confirms the underexposure. On the order of (200,200,200) is far to dark for white feathers in what appears to be sunlight. Take that as what I'd call correctly exposed for a very similar species. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Noodle snacks. Could be QI. —kallerna™ 06:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, it could be FP if the humour of the scene overcame the technical deficiencies. But QI is really only about the technical qualities, it is not for second rate FPs ;-) (A higher ISO and faster shutter speed would have helped) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose motion blur --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Indicating motion, moving a little faster than it first appears :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The bird is not well focused. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Love the pose though.Downtowngal (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support for the position and impression of the bird --Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
