Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cálaos de pico rojo del sur (Tockus rufirostris), parque nacional Makgadikgadi Pans, Botsuana, 2018-07-30, DD 14.jpg

File:Cálaos de pico rojo del sur (Tockus rufirostris), parque nacional Makgadikgadi Pans, Botsuana, 2018-07-30, DD 14.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2018 at 20:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Cálaos de pico rojo del sur (Tockus rufirostris), parque nacional Makgadikgadi Pans, Botsuana, 2018-07-30, DD 14.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cálaos de pico rojo del sur (Tockus rufirostris), parque nacional Makgadikgadi Pans, Botsuana, 2018-07-30, DD 14.jpg

2457

1499

471

617

5884

5792

Dust spot

794

5322

368

294

5884

5792

chromatic aberration

4089

2117

544

779

5884

5792

chromatic aberration

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
•  Info A couple of Southern red-billed hornbills (Tockus rufirostris), Makgadikgadi Pans National Park, Botswana. All by me, Poco² 20:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 20:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blurred birds and noise background, chromatic aberration and Dust spot (notes added) --Photographer 00:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  Keep in mind that this is 34 MP, a size rarely encountered for wildlife. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  @The Photographer and King of Hearts: : I've uploaded a  new version (the dust spot and slight CA are gone, I applied some sharpness too and reduced the highlights) --Poco² 10:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Its a bit better, however, the CA is there (I added another note) --Photographer 01:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't consider this a serious judgement / oppose reason given the high resolution and the fact that I see nothing that I can improve. --Poco² 11:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes you are right, my vote is not because the chromatic aberration problem, my vote is because the picture quality itself. I can see noise and motion focus problem and a and a quality that we should expect from a compact (like Canon SX30) camera but not a 50mpx DSLR Canon EOS 5DS. IMHO, the light was good and f/9 was probably excessive, the quality in general is not at the level of other FP of birds to which we are accustomed. --Photographer 19:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Per King of Hearts. --Aristeas (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support - It's two birds, not one, so I take that into account. It's also a very nice composition. I think it's not at all crazy to oppose, but this is over the line for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Nice composition and quality. The fact that it is 34 MP is not important. The quality is actually no better than you would get with a smaller sensor/fewer pixels. Charles (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed - but it is also no worse. I was merely pointing out that we should not judge such a high-resolution image so harshly at the pixel level. —- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, we should examine all images in detail. Charles (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Support — King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support- Benh (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Nice symmetry. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Karelj (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Tozina (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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