Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Australian Magpie 2, jjron, 5.07.10.jpg

Australian Magpie, Cracticus tibicen tyrannica
Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2010 at 05:17:27 (UTC)


 * Reason:High quality illustration of the Australian Magpie. While we already have an FP of this species, File:Cracticus tibicen tibicen juvinile ANBG.jpg, that is a different subspecies and a juvenile, so I don't think that's an issue, plus this one shows other details, such as the full legs and feet.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Australian Magpie
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator:jjron


 * Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Is that artefacting under the wing, or is that just texture? I'm not sure. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's lifting its wings a little bit and revealing its tail. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not artifacting I don't think as it's in the original; wasn't sure myself if it was a little noise, but given it was taken at ISO200 I wouldn't have expected any noise. --jjron (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak support, we have enough description of this subspecies specifically to warrant a featured picture. Accurately illustrates that it is "a very large white-backed form", but only a weak support as the "broad black tail band" is not visible. A pose as with the lead image would probably have been more effective. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support EDIT:(preferably the alt) Looks great and in better than decent resolution. Not sure if we're restricted to one FP per species, but I support this on its technical qualifications and my own tastes. This one also doesn't have the blurring or the extra background seen in the other ones. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not restricted to one FP per species, but each FP does have to have high encyclopedic value- as such, it would have to be specifically used to show something that the other FP does not. This one is being used to illustrate the subspecies, which certainly warrants illustration. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And as I say in the reason, this an adult vs the other being a juvenile. --jjron (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that more of the color variations are shown in the alternate as well as the glimmer in the eye and that the quality is still high. I think the opposes are a bit unfair, not the bird's fault it's black (and white, you guys do see that, right?). Looks like it was a bit overcast, but I can make out the slight lightshine on the alt, maybe the opposers are giving their computers/monitors too much credit. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Shadows are strongly posterised and cover much of the central subject. Redevelop from RAW, lifting shadows? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nice framing and cropping; nice pose; standing on the fence post is cool. But the lighting is quite short of what I would consider FP material. I have a nice well-adjusted 27-inch iMac monitor and a really well-adjusted Sony Trinitron 21-inch external monitor. And both show this bird’s body like it’s almost a black hole: very little discernible detail. I understand black is hard to light, but I can imagine catching a bird like this with light from a setting sun. If this exact image had that sort of lighting, that would indeed be FP material (IMHO). Greg L (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did this edit: File:Australian Magpie 1, jjron, 5.07 highlight.jpg, but accidentally did it to the wrong image. I don't know if that is worth doing to this. Fairly strong fill flash can help reduce dynamic range with light backgrounds and dark coloured birds. I've got File:Cracticus tibicen hypoleuca male domain.jpg, but was kind of waiting around for a female. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Give it a go if you like, it looks good at image page size, but for mine I think it brings up too much - something, not even sure what to call it - in the blacks. I tried lifting some shadows too but found the same thing, which is why I settled on this as the best compromise. Looks like this has been voted down by now anyway. Yeah, agree, I would have used fill flash in ideal circumstances but was actually taking some scenery so didn't have the flash on, when this cheeky chap came and landed beside me, so just snapped off these couple of shots in the 10 secs I had available before he took off. --jjron (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, btw, just as an independent viewpoint, which one do you think is better for the article? I wasn't sure. Actually, if you don't mind I'll dump up your edit here and see if we can get some feedback. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd actually probably go for 1 - you can see a little more on the head. I think ideally speaking to differentiate subspecies for the Aust. Magpie one should be able to see the back of the bird - but that isn't a factor as there aren't any Adult FPs at the moment. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Greg L (except without the fancy monitors!) --99of9 (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose original and edit. On the edit: I did that, too (but on the original picture) and concluded that nothing will save this except going back to RAW. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Per the above concerns on lighting, get two pictures—one with a flash, one with out—whenever you can. You can see the flash of the camera in the eye of the bird of  other FP's, and that seems to help their FP nomination.  Gut Monk (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea, but as I said I had about 10secs here between the bird landing and taking off, so not much time for planning! I know many bird FPs use flash, in fact a number are overflashed, but you're correct that that often seems to help rather than hinder their noms. --jjron (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen that photo of the baby ducks with a butterfly? Yeah, 100% luck.  Gut Monk (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, haven't seen it. Do you have a link? --jjron (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)