Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ostrich - melbourne zoo.jpg

Ostrich
Another image from the Melbourne Zoo showing an ostrich in an interesting pose. I think this image doesn't suffer as much from the background as the Giraffe shot.


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 10:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support In terms of encyclopedic value and quality, I don't see how an image could possibly be better than this one. No clearer picture of an ostrich head exists anywhere on the net. And since the ostrich head is fairly unique in the animal kingdom a picture like this adds significantly to wikipedia's value.--Tobyw87 11:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While it is a decent shot, it is a bit ambitious to declare it the clearest picture of an ostrich head anywhere on the net. What about this, or this or this? And that took me a total of 30 second to find. There are pages and pages of ostrich images on pbase and most of them don't have the issue of beak overexposure. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose It's nice, but there are too many blown highlights on the beak and around the edges of the bird's neck. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  12:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost all the top of the beak is blown to pure white - Adrian Pingstone 14:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly per adrian --⁪froth T C  15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support All I need to say Booksworm Talk to me! 15:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Definitely a good picture. Ilikefood 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not too thrilled about the blown out parts. And the picture is slightly oversharpened, with dark halos around the blown-out hair. --Dschwen 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you cared so much about blown highlights: Featured picture candidates/Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber --Fir0002 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The key issue is: are important details lost through clipping (or DOF)? In the parliament picture I just didn't care whats outside those windows. It would have distracted from the inside of the room. With the ostrich I care about the texture and color of the beak, which is (imo) a quite essental part of the birds head. A big part of it is blown-out, lowering the enc considerably. Satisfying answer? --Dschwen 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly, thanks for clarifying --Fir0002 05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Composition is good but needed half a stop or so less exposure, the BHs are pretty glaring. --YFB ¿  22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Dschwen. -- Tewy  03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. This picture is of FP quality. Sharkface217 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Striking! Neutralitytalk 02:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Dschwen. Nautica Shad e  s  15:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Depth of field problems, looks like oversharpening in the hair, and blown highlights. --Dgies 07:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose A more attractive picture overall than the other examples, but in comparison with them, quite a lot of detail has been lost on the beak (not so bothered about the feathers. Terri G 11:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nice composition but blown highlights ruin it a little. Just not outstanding enough with the flaws. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support overblown. Reywas92 Talk 21:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Good zoomed-in picture. High picture quality with no blur or pixelation.wwicki 8:05 16 December 2006 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 22:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)