Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black-headed Gull flying

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Black-headed Gull flying

A Black-headed Gull in flight
A Black-headed Gull in flight
Edit 1 by Fir0002, sharpening
Edit 1 by Fir0002, sharpening
Edit 2 by Arad Removed the black and white dots under the gull (I'm not sure) and removed the noise
Edit 2 by Arad Removed the black and white dots under the gull (I'm not sure) and removed the noise
Edit 3 - OK I see that some people don't like the noise removed but the white spots under the gull are really annoying so here is edit 3 with the noise BUT those spots are removed.
Edit 3 - OK I see that some people don't like the noise removed but the white spots under the gull are really annoying so here is edit 3 with the noise BUT those spots are removed.

I took this photo earlier today in St James's Park in London, England. This gull normally has a black head in summer but loses it over the winter and retains just black spots/streaks on its head. I'm fairly happy with how this image turned out - the symmetry of the wings, the sharpness (aside from the wing tips which denotes movement) and the fact that the seagulls head is tilted just enough to view the beak and eyes, whilst also looking a bit curious and cheeky, something very stereotypical of a gull. I know we have an abundance of gull FPCs, but this may be the only one of a gull in action, rather than just standing on a rock or dock. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Why do you still have to nominate? It should be automatic! Iorek85 21:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nice and sharp. SteveHopson 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wow!! - Adrian Pingstone 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic! Also a very illustrative angle • Leon 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Amazing. --Yarnalgo 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original Excellent. Alvesgaspar 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, but come back to Australia and photograph some *real* wildlife :) Stevage 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Terrific image. Hello32020 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Kehaar vill support dis damn fine image. --Bridgecross 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support another one from THE one (lol) --antilived T | C | G 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Either. Very good, and nice to see you're exanding your repoitre to wildlife! --Fir0002 04:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've always shot wildlife[1][2][3][4][5][6]! Its just that there is less to shoot in urban ol' London. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Disappointing is that half of these pictures are not FP. --Arad 22:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Original I feel the sharpening enhanced the artifacts more than the detail, and didn't add much. Otherwise, it's an astounding image. --DonES 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Either. The view is new and interesting, but doesn't lose on encyclopedic value, which is very hard to do. Obviously, there are a few blown highlights, but this is to be expected. As for the two versions, the edit increases the artifats a bit, but it is sharper, so I don't really mind which version is promoted. NauticaShades 09:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wow, that is an excellent image. mstroeck
  • Support Edit 2 the original is still good but i felt i have to remove those white spots under the gull. And the noise. Anyway, good one again Dillif --Arad 13:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support any Sometime, you should take a picture of me Diliff. You would make me look better than I really do, like you did to that gull! | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Strongly agree. Should we all line up in a queue? Alvesgaspar 15:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • First you have to upload an existing photo, and then I'll determine whether you're salvagable as a portrait subject! ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, here it is . Alvesgaspar 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, that's hopeless. Only some of Fir's heavy naughty retouching can help here :-) --Dschwen 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Here is my naughty editing. Hope you like it --Arad 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original, Oppose edit 1 and 2. The original is great, per above. Edit 2 removes the grain (I guess technically a kind of noise, but a noise that is acceptable.) Doing this makes the background look artificially blotchy. The subtle random color variation looks better to me than blurring it together with an average, nearest-neighbor tone. Also, the noise reduction was sloppy, because a lot of detail on the body of the bird is lost. Edit 1's sharpening is too dramatic, and while the darker colors on the bird look more dramatic, it seems artifical. There is nothing that says a bird can't have grey feathers.--Andrew c 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original. Impressive image. - Mailer Diablo 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original, Oppose edits. The original is good enough. --Dschwen 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think now no one has a reason to oppose edit 3 because it removed the only minor flaws the image had. If you pay attention you see small white dots around the gull specially under it, and I don't think those dots add anything to the quality. --Arad 22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Arad, I'm not sure those 'spots' are really flaws. I'm not certain but I suspect they are out of focus drops of water from the gull's feet as it had just launched itself out of the water and was flying away. I don't think they're particularly distracting or necessary to remove. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah. Well I didn't meant flaws. flaws with Diliff are impossible but IMHO they are distracting for me. Well maybe that's only me but I prefer to remove them. Also there are some small (one pixel or two) small white dots sometimes black. There not a big problem anyway. --66.36.146.173 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support original. Great capture, very encyclopaedic and well documented on the image page. At full resolution there appears to be a single bright white pixel right on the tip of the gull’s beak, but I hardly wanted to mention it as the other 4,165,231 pixels are so nicely arranged. Oh, and nice modelling work by the gull too.--Melburnian 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't really need my support, do you? Great shot! BTW, I support the original. --Janke | Talk 06:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, probably the original. Good composition, interesting angle. Dark background shows plumage better than typical sky/sea type shots. Bob talk 11:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. User:Sd31415/Sig 03:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support stunning shot--Mike 04:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Black-headed Gull - St James's Park, London - Nov 2006.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)