Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Myiagra rubecula - Australian National Botanic Gardens.jpg

Leaden Flycatcher edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 11:43:42 (UTC)

Original – Leaden Flycatcher (Myiagra rubecula), Australian National Botanic Gardens, Canberra, Australia

Edit1 – adjusted levels and mild sharpening

Edit 2 - saturation more consistent with original.

Reason: An attractive Flycatcher I spotted in a few places around Canberra. I didn't manage a shot until this male at the Botanic gardens though.
Articles in which this image appears: Leaden Flycatcher
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator --JJ Harrison (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all Has a snapshotty feel and continues the recent trend for over-exposure. [1] is an example of a better composition. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The bird is white, not grey. The exposure is correct on a calibrated sRGB display. I was there. Said calibration includes a luminance level (how bright the display is) and ambient illuminance level (how bright the room is). JJ Harrison (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't even need to talk about the bird, there's plenty of evidence all over the picture that this is overexposed. Whatever your procedure was, that's one smotherbucking skewed histogram you've produced there. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per PLW2. I don't feel it has a snapshot look to it, but it is slightly over exposed. Dusty777 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit1 uploaded. Adjusted levels per above concerns and added mild sharpening. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cranking up the saturation isn't going to help matters much. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't touch it if you'd care to actually read my image editing summary stated in three different places. --jjron (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Check the saturations (if you know how), they are different. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't care, because as already stated four times, they weren't touched. It seems that both God and Adobe work in mysterious ways ... --jjron (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it's just your technical understanding that's lacking. You don't have to actually manually change saturation in order for it to be affected by what you're doing. Think about it, do some experimentation. I know you won't, but don't come back later and say I didn't encourage you to try it for yourself. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You're welcome. --jjron (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit1 after further consideration. --jjron (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 looks good. Pine^talk 10:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Good shot. Clegs (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit Per above Dusty777 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support both with a preference on the edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit but I do agree with PLW2 that the edit too saturated and the original is too bright (so am still hoping for edit 2). --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're all waiting for Mr. Harrison to redo it from RAW, are we not? Since you were happy enough to support a jpeg version, I've added an appropriate edit. However, the loss of detail on the breast can only be remedied from RAW, so I'm not going to support my own edit. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, and yes, for the record, even if we don't get a RAW-remix from JJ, I support Edit 2 as my preference amongst those avaiable. --99of9 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit? Makeemlighter (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preference for Edit 1, Edit 2 is okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Preference for Edit 2, Edit 1 is okay. Pine^talk 05:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit1. --jjron (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~No preference.~~ Clegs (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to break the deadlock, I'm going to say Prefer Edit 1. Clegs (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Original. :P JJ Harrison (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you still support the original only then I think you're supporting a non-promotion. :) If so we can reconsider. --jjron (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prefer edit 1 if it has to be one of them. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that's rather unnecessary scaremongering. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Myiagra rubecula - Australian National Botanic Gardens edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]