Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mute Swan Head

Mute Swan Head edit

Original - The head and neck of a Mute Swan

Edit 1 Dealt with the warm color cast.

Edit 2 Brings more contrast to the beak. Samsara (talk • contribs)

Reason: Its nice and sharp, and the lighting is really its shining star. A good bird portrait, I think. Some may prefer a slightly less noisy BG, which the alternative has. I reduced the noise about as much as I wanted to for the original but there is some left...
Articles this image appears in: Mute Swan
Creator: User:Fcb981

Support as nominator Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Oppose~~ Nice and sharp, but rather than being a shining star I think the lighting is a considerable weak point in these images - ~~the colour casting giving an unenc representation of the white swan.~~ --Fir0002 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak Support Edit 1 colour cast is fixed, though the lighting still results in the tip of the beak melting into the background - hence only a weak support. For a fairly common subject a near perfect photo (a sharp photo with a good bokeh background and good lighting) should be possible --Fir0002 07:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got rid of the cast in the original RAW file. Edit 1 also has less noise. I got rid of the "alternative" to make room for the edit. Tell me if that fixes it. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both. Unfortunate choice of background. I even prefer my picture with the Hamburg city center and war memorial background. --Dschwen 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and I've just now seen that you replaced it with your picture. Hm. --Dschwen 14:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you elaborate, the background in the surface of a partially frozen lake. It is the swans natural enviroment. Not only that, it contrasts the white of the swan and is appropriatly OOF. I replaced yours because of: overly hard and flat lighting and a distracting and unnatural BG. How is the natural BG worse then some building in Hamburg? -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, first of all, in your edit summary you state better lighting, I contest that, the whitebalance falsifies the swans colors. Your background is is no more a natural habitat than mine, swans are a synanthropic species, especially in densely populated countries like germany. My background contrasts the head and makes the contours stand out. Yours obviously does not (see edits). As far as overall quality goes, the only point your image has is a slightly higher DOF. On the head mine has more detail, more resolution, and less noise. Summing it up, you removed a picture to insert your own one of overall lesser or at best equal value and went on to a straight FPC nomination. --17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dschwen (talk • contribs)
      - Huh? look at the bill of your swan picture, its washed out and desaturated, the lighting in yours does nothing to accentuate the texture of the feathers. And you say that my BG camaflages the swan?! The swan is WHITE the BG is DARK BLUE. You clearly took your picture durring mid-day and there is nasty fill light from what I would assume is white stone or stucco of the surrounding buildings. That light serves to wash out all color in you image, it would be better in grey-scale. Yours could also do with a Heavy crop into a portrait or square orientation. Despite higher resolution yours could do with a downsample to add some apparent sharpness. Even though yours is bigger mine is sharper. As for my WB, that was the subtle evening light ;-) and it was eaisly corrected. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe we are both just blind for the flaws in our own pics... --Dschwen 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Probably true, sorry for getting a little defensive. I see that you weren't trying to be malicious. You can add your picture back to the swan article if you like, I can find another home for mine someplace else. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I would prefer this swan . --129.217.129.133 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a nice picture, but it has DOF issues (check out the raised, black part of the beak). Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 2, neutral edit 1 and original. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --jjron (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]