Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Whistling kite in flight.jpg

Whistling Kite

 * Reason:Interesting shot with good EV
 * Articles this image appears in:Whistling Kite
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 14:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Very good capture, but also very indistinct from the background and it is slightly underexposed IMO. Could definitely do with some dodging of the bird's wings to bring it out from the background. I had very rough attempt at it and it brought out the detail very well. Putting a bit of effort into it from the original (RAW, hopefully) would yield much better results than mine. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a slight overall brightening on the bird and boosted the saturation slightly to bring it out a bit more; but I'd already done a fair bit of dodging/brightening from the original and personally don't feel it should have any more as it starts looking a bit unnatural. --Fir0002 13:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Well I put this edit out there anyway, as I don't personally think the bird looks significantly more unrealistic as a result of the edit, but it does stand out a bit more now. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Edit 1, Neutral Original, as per above discussion. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either, good shot --Muhammad (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either. Highly illustrative, sufficient quality. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 I was torn between the better detail in the edit and the closer to real-lifeness of the original, but showing more detail is probably more important.Terri G (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. The lower wing edges are more distinct. Brand[t] 09:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose both: Much too dark. I don't like the haloing of the edit and don't think it's much of an improvement, sorry, :(  If the image were provided higher resolution, this may offset the flaws, but at only 1067x1600, no way.   Mae din \talk 12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

--Staxringold talkcontribs 04:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)