Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Little wattlebird on eucalypt.jpg

Little Wattlebird

 * Reason:High quality image with good EV - shows bird in its natural environment
 * Articles this image appears in:Little Wattlebird
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 00:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis that File:Anthochaera chrysoptera.jpg has higher enc (food) and better lighting. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that a potential food source adds any EV, but at any rate the eucalypt in this photo fulfils this role anyway: File:Little wattlebird looking for food.jpg (I think it's eating the white scale). I suppose lighting is a bit subjective but not sure what your concerns are here..? If you want it lighter or darker that's easily done. Uses morning sunlight which seems pretty aesthetic to me (eg this uses pretty similar lighting). --Fir0002 09:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A lot of messy objects. - Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ..._ Ξ_         .   --  02:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything more specific?  wadester 16  04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a wild bird - this is its habitat. They don't naturally sit on isolated branches waiting for their photo to be taken, they try blend in. --Fir0002 09:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some leaves in the foreground left part hindering, and the contrast between the color of the tree´s branches and sheets and the bird´s body color is somewhat weird (well... maybe not much). - Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ..._ Ξ_         .   --  15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again I'd like to point that argument really has no place on en.wikipedia where EV is very highly weighted. It's simply a reality that certain animals do not naturally expose themselves but blend in with their environment. A quick look through the mammal FPs gives plenty of examples where part of the animals is obstructed because of the environment     . Also not sure what you mean by the tree's "sheets" or any potential contrast issues? --Fir0002 07:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that my own image is unobstructed. But there are plenty at http://images.google.com.au/images?q=little%20wattlebird&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=w. Plus the one you threw out of the article was unobstructed. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those other examples are less obstructed (better than this image in my opinion). - Damërung  ...ÏìíÏ..._ Ξ_         .   --  14:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Unfortunate that a few of the leaves are overlapping the bird, but as Fir said, that's the environment and if it were in a clearer setting, there would be those who'd complain that it was too sterile. No win situation on FPC sometimes. Fir, when are we going to see 5D Mk2 shots?? :-) or slightly higher res images for that matter. Not all of your photos are commercially attractive, so you could potentially upload higher res without jeopardising sales. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A 5D shot has already appeared by accident but I've got 9 months or so of 20D photos to get through before I start uploading Mk II :) That said I'm planning to upload a Mk II shot on a particular date as I've hinted previously... --Fir0002 05:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The resolution benefits of the 5D Mk II are largely wasted when you upload at 1600x1067 though, but that portrait is nice and crisp, it must be said. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality shot with fine EV. I like NS's shot too. They're both FP-worthy IMO. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I think it has good EV and detail. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

-- wadester 16  03:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)