Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pied Oystercatcher on beach.jpg

Pied Oystercatcher

 * Reason:High quality image with great EV
 * Articles this image appears in:Pied Oystercatcher
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Wonderful background.  ceran  thor 11:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak oppose The feet, or rather the talons, are sort of cut off from view in this picture. Other than that, it is lovely.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - A shot that managed to get every little bit of the animal would be great, but I don't think the lack of feet here is a particularly glaring omission. Matt Deres (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality, sharpness and DOF. --Muhammad (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support Overall good quality and high EV, but the composition in which the bird is centered is not satisfying in my viewpoint.--Caspian blue 02:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Just about the entire beak is blown, making it a funny orange colour. Reprocess it though and I'd probably support. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed in edit - note that as per the article it should be an orange colour! --Fir0002 09:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to be an ass, but the edit is really dark. Can't you just do a highlight reduction rather than adjust the exposure outright? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Highlight reduction affects the water as well but hopefully edit 2 is more to your liking. I suppose I could do a exposure blend in PS but I suspect that will introduce haloes... --Fir0002 03:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Use tufuse or something - that doesn't usually introduce haloes. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or better still, just brighten parts selectively. Assuming you shot it in RAW (I hope you did), you could save it as a 16 bit file and dodge as required without introducing artifacts and posterisation. Just an idea anyway. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The edited image is not "fixed" for the reason that NS pointed out, so I still prefer the bright original image.--Caspian blue 14:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The tufuse job. For those that are interested oyster catchers don't generally eat oysters. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the tufuse version (edit 3) even darker than the previous one though? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite true really. Ideally it'd appear as the first one but with a slight bit of highlight reduction. Perhaps the beak is much more blown than you might think though, hence the darkness. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the preference is for the original. -- wadester 16  05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)