Snowy Egret edit
I think the picture has pretty high EV, showing the bird in a natural pose, exhibiting the common field marks (egret shape, white, with black legs and yellow "boots". It's high res, and sharp detail. I might have moved it straight to FP nominations, but I wanted a second opinion. I uploaded this pic to replace the one formerly listed, which I think had lower EV. Nevertheless, I don't want to seem utterly self-promoting here - hoping to get an objective eye or two involved. See Talk:Snowy Egret for details about the swap.
- Articles this image appears in
- Snowy Egret
- Creator
- Johnath
- Comments
- Probably doesn't have a chance, appears to have some seriously blown out highlights along the top of the bird. — raekyT 02:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, this was part of my concern, too - the blown highlights aren't masking important details, but they do detract from the technical quality somewhat.--Johnath (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Blown highlights like this might be forgiven for a WP:VPC but is pretty much impossible to get through a WP:FPC. — raekyT 02:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is why you should shoot RAW - highlight recovery would be easy. The head of the egret also seems to be out of focus. Hopefully it isn't too difficult to try again. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Blown highlights like this might be forgiven for a WP:VPC but is pretty much impossible to get through a WP:FPC. — raekyT 02:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, this was part of my concern, too - the blown highlights aren't masking important details, but they do detract from the technical quality somewhat.--Johnath (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seconder