Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Numenius madagascariensis 1 - Stockton Sandspit.jpg

Far Eastern Curlew
Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019  at 04:14:00 (UTC)


 * Reason:Endangered and in my experience are normally pretty difficult to approach - they'll take off if you get with 100 meters. I woke at around 4am drove two hours before dawn and set up with a Ghillie suit in what turned out to be just the right place to get the shot.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Far Eastern curlew
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator:JJ Harrison


 * Support as nominator – JJ Harrison (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Discombobulated – How come Pterodroma lessonii is in the photo caption of Numenius madagascariensis ? --Janke | Talk 08:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Amazing bird with gorgeous beak, great light, but I find the blurry foreground a bit intrusive aesthetically. Why not truncating it over the black area? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I too don't go for the intentionally blurred foreground technique. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Inentionally"? I'd really like to see a sharp foreground in a picture shot with a 1200mm lens... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The use of 'Intentionally', Janke, is accurate, because JJ has said he takes images from a POV close to the ground. A higher POV wouldn't have the blurred foreground in the shot that JJ likes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The bird looks great, but the "banding" of the picture is a bit too much for me. JJ's images of birds on the ground or sea tend towards this a bit, and it's usually fine, but, here, it seems particularly overpowering, kind of like it was shot super-widescreen, and then a blurry area was added top and bottom to fill in. The divide between sharp and blurry is such a sudden transition, and perfectly level - maybe the top blurry bit is actually a transition in whatever's behind him, but it's still really distracting. That said, it gives absolutely amazing results for birds in branches, like the ones below, so...
 * I could support a crop. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 20:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * So would I, but with a little more headroom than in the example, and slice off a bit on both sides, this doesn't need to be a panorama... --Janke | Talk 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm tring to compromise the amount of the dark brown band visible. Much more than that and it's intrusive. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 15:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't really care either way. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditional support – There is an FP in there somewhere. Consider me a full support after some cropping along the lines described above. seems to be away currently and I hope they return in time. If not, an immediate renomination is certainly warranted. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  01:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – there is a better image here, it has more resolution on the bird itself, and better lighting IMO. So I am leaning to oppose the nom image in favor of the other image. My opinion on the nom image: I am Ok with the background bokeh, the foreground isn't too distracting, per Basile Morin above I think it would be an improvement if the bottom ~10% of the image is cropped out (the black or darker portion of the foreground). Bammesk (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Is the brown band (top third) natural? Oppose the proposed crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support, either version, but the aspect of the cropped one now looks too elongated, and tight at the top. I would have kept the same ratio W/L and just got rid of the bottom. Well... -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 04:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)