Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Crested Tern Tasmania.jpg

Crested Tern in Tasmania

 * Reason:Good quality, interesting pose (a breeding display)
 * Articles this image appears in:Greater Crested Tern, Thalasseus, Lari
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support . Support either with preference for Crop (Edit 1). Nice capture. Looks slightly underexposed in the thumbnail but better when viewed at 100%. I would have liked to see slightly more space behind the bird and slightly less in front - it just has a bit of an imbalanced composition IMO, even though the body of the bird is centred. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Sharp and excellent use of depth of field.  Good ev.  Durova Charge! 09:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Photographically good image, nice bokeh. --Janke | Talk 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'd support this, but the dark sharpening artifact on the bird's breast/beak really is distracting. Do you think you could mask an unsharpened version (or one with sharpening blended for lightening only) in that area? Thegreenj 22:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have a PSD with a masked sharpened layer so i should be able to fix it when I get home without any quality loss etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed that, I uploaded straight over the top since only about 100 pixels are different and the difference is barely perceptable anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support Better now, though the breast still has sharpening artifacts, and there's a bit of noise. Still, very nice. Thegreenj 19:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support; good picture with excellent use of depth of field. Composition would probably be made perfect by cropping just a bit of the left side so that the log is centered; quick experimentation show that balancing the bird surface pushes the log too far to the left.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a cropped version so the log is centered Noodle snacks (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Nice colours and bokeh but there is quite a lot of noise in the wing area. --Abdominator (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's right, that is quite a lot for ISO 400. Did you underexpose and then brighten the shadow detail on the wing? I can understand why if you did, as its hard to shoot a subject like this and avoid the white feathers facing direct sun becoming grossly overexposed. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Had to to a certain degree in order to preserve the highlights, I used fill flash with a frensel lens type flash extender to fill in the shadows, but I was at the edge of the effective range for that setup. A version with selective noise reduction is now attached. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edits 1 and 2 Nicer composition in original than edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Not convinced of the noise reduction in edit 2.  Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Very nice composition and colours but unsufficient quality for FP due to noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support any.--Avala (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support original Though a good bokeh and composition, the subject itself is quite noisy.  Spencer T♦C 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support any, with slight preference for edit 2. The noise is a little better, though still a bit of a problem.--ragesoss (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support any. --Base64 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)