Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ruby-throated Hummingbird feeding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ruby-throated Hummingbird feeding

Another male Ruby-throated hummingbird. This particular image is used in the Hummingbird article to demonstrate the use of nectar feeders to attract the birds. However, the high-resolution also provides high detail of the bird's plumage, particularly the anatomy of the spread wing.

Slight subject blur is acknowledged. However, given the difficulty of photographing this notoriously small and speedy bird, particularly with spread wings, the blur may be excused under the exception rule of the Featured Picture Criteria.

  • Nominate and support. - –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per this picture currently not being included in any articles.

SorryGuy 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Apologies for the confusion, I had included another similar picture in the article. This image is now present at Hummingbird#Hummingbirds_and_people. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay I will go ahead and support now. While the feeder is a little distracting the image is very high res and the difficulty of taking such a picture is understandable. SorryGuy 02:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Edit 1
Edit 1
  • Oppose, the motion blur is just too much. It doesn't feel right looking at the bird in full res. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I acknowledge the difficulties of taking this shot! However, the garish red and yellow feeder is really unattractive. A terracotta pot or something would be ok, but not this. And (not surprisingly), yes, it's blurry. A crisp image of a hummingbird with wings folded is preferably to a blurry image of one in flight. It really is a good photo, but doesn't quite meet our standards for FP, I believe. Stevage 09:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, since the photo doesn't actually show the bird feeding, would a crop improve the composition?--Peta 15:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hmm, this is a very good shot with the bird in a nice position, but the blur is really a pity. Edit 1 provides a better balance, which I'd really like to support. However, I want to encourage the photographer to retry, as a picture like that without blur would really be something to be proud of. — Vildricianus 15:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. (On the non-edited, even!) Honesly, I fail to see the blur you're talking about. o_O Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Motion blur, 1/60 sec - what do you expect? --Fir0002 12:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you know it's 1/60? I don't see the EXIF info? Stevage 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)