Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Aix galericulata (Male), Richmond Park, UK - May 2013.jpg

File:Aix galericulata (Male), Richmond Park, UK - May 2013.jpg
Voting period ends on 19 May 2013 at 09:17:39 (UTC)
 * Reason:A simple portrait of the spectacular male Mandarin Duck, with all the necessary detail in focus and in high resolution.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Mandarin Duck and Richmond Park
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator -- &#208;iliff   &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Good work although the bright background is a bit distracting and a bit noisy. Is such a high ISO (1,250) is really required for a non-flying bird? (Just some doubts prior to a review.) J Kadavoor J e e 12:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ISO 1250 was necessary for this particular photo. It was a little overcast and also the duck was under some overhanging trees which further reduced the light. The shutter speed was 1/200th of a second at 300mm focal length. I don't feel that a slower shutter speed would have captured the bird sharply as it was constantly moving. I don't think it's particularly noisy though. There is some noise but consider that (for example) JJ Harrison usually often shoots at a similar ISO, but he often downsamples his images significantly so noise is diminished. This image is not downsampled and is quite high res (5,211 × 3,512). &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Enough reasons. Further, I prefer a generous contribution than a too downsampled. J Kadavoor J e e 05:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 *  Weak support The noise is somewhat disappointing at full size, don't know why a 2012 camera still produces it despite calm shooting conditions. Very nice otherwise. Brandmeistertalk  20:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It has a little noise because the ISO was high. It wasn't as calm as the scene suggests, the duck was moving around a lot. The ISO was high as per my reasoning above. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it now. Brandmeistertalk  17:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not bothered by the noise, I've seen worse. I agree the bright background is a bit glaring; could I impose on you trying to upload a version where just the bright background is a wee bit toned down? Also curious about how the photograph was taken, did you use a flash or similar? – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 05:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Striked out comment, I keep looking at the picture and the glare's not bugging me much. Picture looks like a painting, really well done. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 07:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support very nice. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Oversharpened. Arctic   Kangaroo  07:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oversharpened? Really? Could you be more specific? I don't think it's particularly sharpened at all, and certainly not when viewed at a reasonable size. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, oversharpened results in crystalline pixels or hard blocky edges; I'm not seeing that here. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 20:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Lovely colours; the background doesn't bother me. —Bruce1eetalk 05:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I see no problem with the noise. ISO is completely justified, and in all honesty, on a 5D3 is a complete non-issue. EV and quality are great. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  18:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 09:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)