Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Polytelis anthopeplus 2.jpg

Regent Parrot

 * Reason:Good image of a juvenile (similar to female) Regent Parrot.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Regent Parrot
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1. Seems a touch overexposed (beak and breast) but otherwise another quality photo. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would second that. Can it be re-developed with more balanced values? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks ok to me. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare to edit 1? The difference is quite subtle (didn't need a huge amount), but I think it's an improvement. NS's feedback welcome too. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Ditto J Milburn. Great shot!  upstate NYer  19:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1. Lovely. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 -- Benjamint 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 - very very nice. Elekhh (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I think this should be redone properly, from raw. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your objection (in reality, not in theory) to edit 1? It could be reprocessed from RAW, but I think the benefit would be minimal. There isn't any blown highlights, just slight overexposure. And the overexposure is mainly in areas of detail, so any benefit of working with a colour space larger than 8 bit is largely lost in situations like that - you simply wouldn't notice any introduced posterisation. So is it really worth insisting on reprocessing it from RAW in this case? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)