Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Prothonotary Warbler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Prothonotary Warbler

A Prothonotary warbler perched on a tree branch.

Edit 1 - Removed most of the noise

Edit 2 - Diliff's slightly better job of removing the noise and better (lower) compression to maximise detail. Less JPEG artifacts

Tags completely removed

The bird itself has a very striking coloration, especially for a non-tropical bird, and this image captures the bright coloration very well in a high-resolution profile. Comparable to Image:Sitta-carolinensis-001 edit.jpg, a current featured picture of similar size and quality (but of a different bird). It appears in Prothonotary warbler and List of Kansas birds and was taken by User:Mdf.

• Nominate and support. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 02:10 UTC
• Oppose. Pretty picture, but not particularly striking. The framing and composition are boring, and the bracelet on the bird's leg detracts from the picture. --Zambaretzu 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support whichever edit with the most noise removed. I find the colors striking. And the picture, being quite clear, has definite encyclopedic value. bcasterline t 03:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And I'm fairly opposed to removing the ring and tag. 23:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. The diagonals of the tree trunk and the bird's posture give some small interest and the yellow is indeed eye-catching. Not a picture that makes me jump around in wild excitement, though. --Surgeonsmate 03:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fir's edit Are you serious? This is a gorgeous photo. Could probably do with a little sharpening though. --liquidGhoul 09:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support Diliff's edit It has less noise in the lower right hand corner. --liquidGhoul 05:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent photograph. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The grey background to the right is very noisy, or has dithering artefacts or something. Can someone with some expertise tell me what's going on there, and whether it can be fixed? Stevage 11:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support My original edit. Diliff's version has lost detail through his noise reduction on the beak. Also I think the tail is sharper on mine. I don't think that the removal of the tags was necessary, so I don't have a preference for my second edit. Sensational Picture. We really need to nominate more pix of Mdf's as they are all really good (Canon 1DS Mark II !)--Fir0002 www 11:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Better, but now there seem to be a lot of JPEG artefacts in the background? I know, I'm never happy. :) Agree that Mdf's stuff is great. Stevage 14:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I really don't think there is any detail lost in the beak. There is a tiny amount of texture (which could in all honestly have been noise - its difficult to tell) lost but not any real detail lost. Its not worth worrying about but I personally think the nasty artifacts introduced by the poor compression levels in edit 1 outweigh it. Its probably a bit late in the process to introduce a third image with the beak more excluded from noise reduction though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fir's edit but Oppose any with bands removed. I actually think the dull background helps the image as it serves to highlight the bird's bright colouration... but although cloning out the rings is very impressive, I don't see what makes it necessary in an encyclopaedia. --Yummifruitbat 11:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful picture. Iorek85 12:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support, even with minor background blemishes. Great photo. I suspect photos like these are under-appreciated because we're so used to seeing them taken by professionals. When Wikipedians take them, we should give them the respect they deserve. Stevage 14:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I suspect that this guy is no armchair amateur - the camera used to take it is worth $USD8000-10000! I know that doesn't automatically mean professional, because there are plenty of rich retired birdwatchers! ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's either a captive bird or being studied for something (note the leg tag)... I'd prefer that it didn't have that, but I'm not sure it's worth opposing over it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  Often, birds are simply tagged and then released in order to track migrations. I think almost a quarter of all birds in the US are currently tagged that way. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 15:55 UTC

  Interesting, we have two extremes: those who want all photographs to come from zoos, ideally with the cage's caption so we can be sure it's really that bird (not original research), and those that want the photos to be totally natural and thus not have tags or look as though the animal is caged. I have no opinion. Stevage 17:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support edit 1 or 2. Flip this upside down and you almost have today's featured picture. howcheng {chat} 19:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The removal of the bands was well done, but totally unnecessary. I think they add to the encyclopedic value. howcheng {chat} 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support for edit 2 as a preference. It sucks to waste a Canon 1Ds Mk II's resolution on a 1024x1024 image. Perhaps he can upload a higher res version. Excellent image, though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Beautiful! Superb resolution, good detail, nice saturation. --Pharaoh Hound 00:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Supprort edit two. Perfect. Edit three wasn't necessary, the bands don't detract from the image in any way! --Pharaoh Hound 19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. I was looking for high quality photos of this species, and lo and behold, here's the wikipedia image! Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Nic pic but it's a pity about the ankle rings. Stevage, I'm not sure which nomination you are referring to, but you won't find many examples of your first extreme. In my experience images are far more likely to fail for looking unnatural/in a zoo ~ Veledan • Talk 21:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not on FPC, but there are *some* people who think that photos without proof of what it is are OR. Anyway. Stevage 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• First edit. Color and clarity good. Natural setting is a plus also.--Dakota ~ 06:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I tried to remove the metall ring. Is it better? Can anybody remove the green ring?Olegivvit 12:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Have a look and see you what you think... --Fir0002 www 09:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Magic. I have a strong preference for Fir002's version. Stevage 18:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Metal ring removed

Green tag removed

• Strong Support Original Great picture and very colorful -- BWF89 12:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Which original, surely not with the noisy background? Stevage 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose altered versions. Generally I don't mind alterations in illustrations to enhance their illustrative power, but by removing the tag on the bird we actually make the image less informative. Neutral on the image overall. It's a nice photograph and I'm glad we have it, just not sure it's the best we have to offer. --Gmaxwell 21:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate on "less informative"? I'm keen to understand the arguments of those violently opposed to touching up images to remove such artefacts. One concern I have is that if you had not seen the original, you almost certainly wouldn't have detected the change, or complained about it etc. Should we not judge the end result, not the process at which it was arrived at? Stevage 07:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose "tag removed" version (neutral on other versions). Great job removing the tag, but it doesn't go down well with me either. —Pengo 07:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support Fir0002's Edit 1. The bird is great, but the background is bland, which is why only weak support. Edit 1 is definitely the best, far sharper in beak detail and back/tail feathers than Edit 2. Removal of the bands is unnecessary - strong preference for leaving them in. --jjron 08:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fourth Image I like the one without the green tag. —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Edit 1, Oppose "tag removed" version. Edit 1 is the best to me, and removing the tag makes that area look off. Not enough leg to work with I think. JQF 20:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Protonotaria-citrea-002 edit 2.jpg Ravedave 03:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Protonotaria-citrea-002 edit.jpg. As per discussion on Wikipedia FPC talk page --Fir0002 www 10:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)