Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Painted Stork

Painted Stork

 * Reason:The image is of high technical quality: good contrast, neutral colour balance. The subject is in focus, and the framed against a distant, natural background. The image is also of high resolution. It is also amongst wikipedia's best work, better than the other existing images of the painted stork. The encyclopedic knowledge it adds is indisputable, the image clearly illustrates the colours in the plumage and of the different parts of the bird's body.
 * Articles this image appears in:Painted Stork, Stork
 * Creator:Emeldil


 * Support as nominator Emeldil (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The crop's a bit awkward - you wouldn't have a version that goes right to its feet I don't suppose? --jjron (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. The original image is of the same height, only broader. The picture was cropped as the rest of it did provided no extra detail. It should be noted that the photograph was taken from a boat in a river. Emeldil (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a shame as the picture is quite nice. I might fence sit on this one. --jjron (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The contrast in this picture is perfect. The picture illustrates the features of the painted stork very well. Bharath (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Unfortunately I disagree with above - the contrast isn't great, as there are significant parts of the bird that are completely overexposed and burnt out (the back and legs mainly), The image seems slightly soft and blurry and of course the fact that the legs are obscured doesn't help. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Diliff and oversharpening. Time3000 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Blown out highlights and kinda blurry. 8thstar 14:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose mainly because of the overexposure on the back feathers which has destroyed all the detail there, if you turned up the contrast afterwards it might have made it even worse. Thisglad (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above.  crassic ![ talk ] 02:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - trying to avoid any inadvertant puns, the fundamental problem is that it is not a complete picture of the subject and in this case it needs to be. End of story. Motmit (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious. This bird, like most water birds, would spend much of its time standing in water (As it is probably doing here.) If the picture stretched down till the surface of the water, would that somehow negate your objection? Emeldil (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As you say it is "probably" standing in water, but we don't know from the picture, and that is the problem. I'm curious too, and the picture does not give an idea of how long its legs are - which it might do if the cut off were caused by the water surface. Others oppose it for overexposure and blurriness which for me do not seem anything like as significant. Does that make sense? because I do like the picture and the colour relationships are really effective, and so I find the cut-off a real shame Motmit (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to weak oppose because of the blown white on the back of the bird, but some of the comments above puzzle me. For example, I can't count the number of Great Blue Herons I've seen, yet the only time I've ever seen their feet is in flight or when they lift a foot out of water to take a step. Motmit, you seem to think the cutoff is especially a problem; would you care to elaborate why this cutoff is so egregious to you? Matt Deres (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Diliff. Spencer  T♦C 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

. --John254 02:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)