Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Fringilla coelebs (chaffinch), male.jpg

Image:Fringilla coelebs (chaffinch), male.jpg

#1  #2  #3 

•  Info created by MichaelMaggs - uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Male chaffinch showing off his plumage.

Version 1 (left), not featured

•  Support --MichaelMaggs 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think the bird knew that it was posing for a featured picture candidate ;) Unfortunately not very sharp. --norro 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness although it is not that bad. Perhaps it can be nehanced by a bit of downsampling + digital sharpening. Where is version 2?Berrucomons 21:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose this is worse than the downsampled and sharpened edit. -- Ram-Man 21:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Version 2 (Center), not featured

•  Info a bit sharpened and downsampled.
•  Support WOW factor = 100% --LucaG 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks LucaG for the edit. --MichaelMaggs 21:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I think the bird knew that it was posing for a featured picture candidate ;) --norro 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose While the downsampling here makes sense, it is still too unsharp for a FP, as even at 2MP it doesn't look that good. We have much sharper bird pictures. -- Ram-Man 21:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't understand why this has such a low quality. It surely looks like it could've come from a better source. --MichaD 22:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 400mm focal length taken at 1/60 of a second. Probably blurred from lens shake. That said, the resolution of the "original" is 2602x3676, but the Canon EOS 20D only takes a maximum resolution of 2336x3504, so the image appears to have been upsampled. Maybe that has something to do with it? -- Ram-Man 23:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Digon3 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Version 3 (Right), featured

•  Info Sharpened, down-sampled, contrast corrected, noise removed.
•  Support It's good enough. --Arad 14:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Info - When proposiing a new version please insert a new section for voting (just put the title between two "===="), so that all versions appear in the contentes table. - Alvesgaspar 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I'm impressed with the noise reduction.--MichaelMaggs 17:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Great work. Jón 10:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Kozák 11:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Compared to this and this sharpness is still on the weak side --Simonizer 14:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is the best edit of the three, but I have to agree with Simonizer: we have sharper bird pictures. -- Ram-Man 14:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Still on the blurred side. Sorry. Berrucomons 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support The thumbnail is brilliant and the sharpness of the fullres version is sufficient for me. --norro 09:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me too. --LucaG 21:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Support And me. --87.52.100.91 07:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (<--That was me not being logged in - sorry :-) --Malene Thyssen 07:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
•  Support // tsca [re] 13:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, I know how hard it is to get close enough but that picture could still be downsampled to 50% without losing any detail. --MichaD 09:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)