Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bicolored Antbird

Bicolored Antbird

 * Reason:Pulled from PPR as I was archiving. Received some positive feedback and probably deserves a chance. From the PPR nom: This is a beautiful image of a difficult to see bird. The species, like most of its family, tends to skulk in the undergrowth in the forests of South and Central America and we have few images of the family.
 * Articles this image appears in:Antbird, Bicoloured Antbird
 * Creator:Mdf


 * Neutral as nominator jjron (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Original- support edit2 The underlying image is good but the use of flash has degraded it. It's a common mistake, but even with the advanced metering on camera's these days, manual adjustment is often necessary to ensure the flash doesn't overpower the view. The flash should only output enough to gently even out any lack of lighting so as to blend with the natural light. The flash is too strong in the original and therefore has a very artificial look. One other thing, there has been too much sharpening added. However, great work getting a shot of the bird, it's not easy.Capital photographer (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the general effect of your edit, but I think you've gone too far in removing the spot from the bird's eye; the lack of reflection there gives it a very lifeless look. Otherwise your, er, jiggery pokery works very well. ;) Matt Deres (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Original Nice neat pic and it looks alive here. I have already complimented Cap on some jiggery pokery on a fairly duff pic, so by the same token I hope it won't be taken amiss if I say don't think it has added value here. Comments on the flash may be technically correct, but I prefer the original  Motmit (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original only - the edit looks like it had its eye poked out, esp. in the thumbnail. de Bivort 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Edit photo has the bird look like it has no eye. Other than that, however, it's a good photo. -- Sharkface T/C
 * Support edit 2 much improved. Mangostar (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Edit 2 is a great improvement. Capital photographer (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 as person that dragged this image into peer review. Mdf's photos of antbirds are exceptionally clear compared to most you see on the web, and inspired me to push the article on the family to FAC (it's getting close to peer review at the moment). Sabine's Sunbird  talk  22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support all Well done. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 22:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2. The second edit improves the image while keeping the eye looking normal. Nautica Shad es  21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 And btw, what special circumstances give us a "neutral as nominator"? I thought the idea was to only nominate what you support. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jjron just brought it over from PPR. The folks that submit there sometimes are unsure of the nomination process here at FP, so he sometimes nominates on their behalf. Matt Deres (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. Strongly oppose edit 1 with the poked-out eye. Dorftrottel (ask) 22:51, May 7, 2008
 * Support edit 1 colour more vivid than edit 2 and whilst it looks worse as a thumbnail I think the eye looks better and more natural at full size, in the other versions the second bright white spot is obviously from the camera flash. Guest9999 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)