Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Egretta thula.jpg

Image:Egretta thula.jpg, not featured

Original, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Tomascastelazo --Tomascastelazo 17:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Taken at Lake Yuriria, Guanajuato, Mexico--Tomascastelazo 17:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral for now. Excellent composition. I like the use of space. It could do with some noise-reduction and sharpening, though. --MichaelMaggs 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noise, sharpness. Unnecesarry editing. --Beyond silence 19:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral good composition but i agrre with Michael --Simonizer 19:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral I like it but too noisy and not sharp enough for FP. I'll support if these are fixed. Calibas 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral (original) Beautiful! Near mitigating composition. It is not because this picture was shot down that I have to oppose a similar one ;-). Lycaon 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --IMO the original is the best as the noise has more the aspect of natural film grain, which is not the case for the edited versions where it looks like more digital blur. Grain is acceptable but it depends on the subject of the photograph. In this case (photograph of animals), it's not « top », but the overall visual quality of the picture makes it really good. Sting 12:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Composition really stands out... - Noumenon _talk 16:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Noisy but superb :-) --Tony Wills 08:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral => not featured (not enough support votes). Cecil 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit 1, not featured

•  Info - I have uploaded a edited version, but I really think the image is beyond repair. It's a shame because the composition is very nice. Alvesgaspar 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - First of all, thanks Alvesgaspar, I like your version better... On the other hand, I come from the days where grain is just grain, generally accepted and given "normal" considerations, part of the image. Noise is nothing else but digital grain. Back in the old days, one could choose fine grain film, fine grain processing at the expense of not getting the image. It is no different now... one must choose ISO speed over other considerations in order to get the image. Not because the camera can produce noisless images, due maily to ISO setings, it means that every picture must be grainless. All pictures will show noise at certain magnifications, just like in the old days. And besides, screen displays are so far from print displays that some of these observations about noise are completely irrelevant. Noise, most of the time, is irrelevant. Grain, most of the time, is irrelevant. Some of the greatest pictures ever, were taken with the good old Kodak Tri X film, pushed, pulled, and grainy... What I see here, over and over, is a general misunderstanding of the medium and how the medium is evaluated and appreciated. Form is privileged over content. Alleged technical quality is privileged over true photographic quality. As I have often said, do not miss the lanscape beyond the window... Photography is just a medium... ----Tomascastelazo 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --For the edited version : if the noise of the background is better, the post-processing introduced heavy rainbow artefacts on the birds (head, body, their image in the water). Sting 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oppose all versions. Very beautiful picture and composition but for my taste I dont see any mitigating reasons here. Low Q @ 3k, its a pity!° --Richard Bartz 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Beyond silence 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 05:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit 2, not featured

•  Info I propose an edit of Alvesgaspar's version with colour noise reduction. Vassil 21:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose One more edit on an edit of an edit and there is nothing left ... Lycaon 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Beyond silence 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 05:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)