Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leucippus fallax

Leucippus fallax
Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2012 at 15:10:20 (UTC)
 * Reason:Beautiful pose, trouble shooting and excellent quality for the encyclopedia
 * Articles in which this image appears:Buffy Hummingbird
 * FP category for this image:Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator:Wilfredor


 * Support as nominator --Wilfredor (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Alt 1. Image quality is not as good as what we've come to expect from other wildlife photos taken by other contributors, and the view looking up at the bird is not ideal, but it's well composed and we don't have a lot of images from this part of the world. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  07:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the assumption that this depicts a live bird and not a museum specimen, support. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, it does look a bit... stuffed. But I'm pretty sure it's not in a museum, as the effective 35mm focal length is 780mm (the camera sensor's crop factor is 5.2). That's a fairly extreme magnification for shooting an interior shot in a museum. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the aperture, iso, shutter speed combination is enough to rule out interior of a museum. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as in Commons. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Diliff. Amended description per original file and geocode: the image was taken on Isla Margarita, Venezuela. -- ELEKHHT 12:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose this isn't "among Wikipedia's best work" for technical quality. Pine✉ 07:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough for me. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  13:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose 'original': It looks like it's been cut-out. There are white margins in places and blurry edges in others.  (Which isn't as noticeable in this larger resolution version.)  Julia\talk  07:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. I prefer the other version actually. I don't think it's been cut out so much as poorly sharpened with a large radius, giving a bit of a halo effect. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Julia. The original is not only larger in dimensions but considerably larger in file size, so something's been lost (though that might just be noise). The original has also had a colour "fix" though I've no way of knowing if that improved things. Although the reduction in size hasn't seemed to lose much detail, it wasn't necessary as the original wasn't offensively blocky or noisy. Re: the stuffed look. The whole (original) picture has a strange quality. It reminds me of an illustration (rather than photo) of a bird in one of my dad's v old encyclopaedias. The current article version has been damaged by the smoothing manipulations, which affect the bird's outline and cause a halo on the branch. I'd support the larger original per Diliff's comments and those made on Commons FP about the difficulty of making this shot. Colin°Talk 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alt 1 added. A little bit of noise removal from Wilfredor's bigger original.  Julia\talk  16:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support alt 1. Julia\talk  17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the proposed alternative. The problem is that it isn't the one in the article. This isn't Commons. What do we do here? Colin°Talk 22:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Use common sense instead of procedure. If one is stable in the article, the other should be too. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't think we need to be too precious about making the switch in the article. There is no fundamental difference between the images, only improved image quality. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we seem to be in agreement that the proposed original lead image was unsatisfactory, esp. when compared to the larger original or Julia's alternative, I've replaced the lead with Julia's. I agree for such a minor change that we shouldn't need to wait a week or anything, but just wanted to make sure we promote (if we do) an image that is actually in use! Colin°Talk 10:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past, the closer has been clever enough to replace the article image with the one which has passed. I know this does create the potential for friction, but I don't believe there has been any problems in reality. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)