Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-necked Grebe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Red-necked Grebe

Reason

Very sharp, no artifacts, excellent composition, perfectly captured the bird's personality

Articles this image appears in

Red-necked Grebe, List of Kansas birds, List of non-passerine birds of Korea, List of Iowa Birds

Creator

User:Mdf

Nominator

Althepal

• Support Reasons given above. Only negative about this picture is the water splashes showing up blurry should have been cloned out. --Althepal 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - A fine action shot from MDF. Debivort 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Great shot, although would liked a bit higher shutter speed but at 700mm focal length (is that the 35mm focal length or multiplied by 1.3?) what more can you expect? --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Would be an ok FP on commons but not here. It's not so much encyclopaedic as an interesting photo. Does not teach me about the subject. Also blurry on wings. Witty lama 05:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that the blurred wings detract at all from the picture, and even though the DOF was small, Mdf did a fine job. Anyhow, here's something that the picture teaches you: These birds often stand up in water and flap their wings while preening and playing. I don't know if you want to change your vote or anything, but it is something to think about. ;-) --Althepal 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Impressive focal length (not entirely sure how he got that particular length.. 700 doesn't correspond to any standard focal length except the 35-350mm f/5.6L with a 2x teleconverter.. it doesn't take into account non 35mm sensors for effective FLs) but the angle just isn't ideal. The wings look quite awkward. Would have preferred a more frontal view. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support lovely encyclopedic photo. Mak (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate the wings are out of focus because the bird is flapping them BUT for an FP I would want them in focus (it can be done!) - Adrian Pingstone 12:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support to me opposing for the wings being out of focus just doesn't make sense. The image is mostly in focus, the wings really look fine to me. A gorgeous image and highly encyclopedic. ~ Arjun 14:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just my opinion! - Adrian Pingstone 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I know and I respect that, I wasn't making a reference to you :). ~ Arjun 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the wings are just a bit *too* blurry. And considering that they're the essential part of this scene, that's a problem. Can you imagine printing and framing a picture like that? The sharpness of the rest is great though. Stevage 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course they're blurry, that's common with moving things. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Common in common photos, not so common in exceptional photos.. Technically this image is very good except in composition. If it were more front-on, the right hand wing would be less of an OOF blob and the blur would be easier to accept (IMHO anyway). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Support - Beautiful shot -- Sturgeonman 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - This amount of wing blur is exactly what you are aiming for in wildlife photography. Also 700mm is a very standard focal length as this is a 500mm with a 1.4 TC. Nice catch. Wwcsig 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I think it shows the bird's plumage exceptionally well. I don't see how the slight blur detracts from the photo or how it would be inappropriate given that it's showing the bird in action. Basar 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It looks slightly too tight for the wings, but otherwise it's fine. typhoonchaser 16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Podiceps-grisegena-008.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)