Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red Crossbills (Male).jpg

Common Crossbill


This is an artful, detailed photograph illustrating the Common Crossbill. (Admittedly, it is not 1000 pixels wide, and seems to render somewhat blurrily at small sizes.) The two birds together, almost mirroring each other in position, make it more than just another wildlife picture—they intrigue the viewer, who will want to find out more (one of the FP criteria). Photograph released into public domain by its source, http://www.naturespicsonline.com/. (For the record, the original version at lower resolution is at .) Outriggr 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nominate and support. - Outriggr 03:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A beautiful Picture. J [[Image:Face-grin.svg|15px]] rc  og  a  !  04:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. - Mgm|(talk) 13:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Gorgeous, but too small. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good resolution, great detail. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  12:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just too small, you can't make a high quality print out of it. Also not sharp enough, given it's size. Lastly (and this is a "fixable" problem) it needs a caption. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a caption (which I thought was required only on the image page). It is unfortunate that pictures primarily meant for monitor display in an online encyclopedia are judged on their resolution. Outriggr 18:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I wasn't opposing it on the basis of a lack of caption. As for the resolution, please see criteria 1&2 here. Not only is it not large enough to generate a quality reproduction, but given how small it is, it has quality issues. Aside from being too small in an absolute sense (i.e., to fulfill criterion 2), it's also too small subjectively for this image. Many features of interest in the birds (fine detail in feathers, particularly around the eyes) are simply too small. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with the response above, but I'd like to add that not everyone has a low ~800x600 resolution display, either. I personally use a 1920x1200 resolution monitor and it looks positively tiny on my screen. An image meant for monitor display these days should be typically full screen on most typical resolutions. This means at LEAST 1280x1024 which is the defacto standard for most new LCD monitors bought these days. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Resolution is enough to be half a page of a magazine. Do you think it's really necessary to push resolution requirements higher and higher ? Ericd 23:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Although quality and technical concerns have risen, the birds are posed in a way that allows the viewer to see an incredible side of the two. Even with technical concerns, it is an exceptional photograph. -- AJ24 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose due to resolution. I really like the composition otherwise.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support higher resolution version.  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Support.  It's a fantastic composition, just beautiful.  But the resolution is so low, you can tell there's positively oodles of detail hiding behind its undersized goodness.  The new high-res version looks great! --Marumari 03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: you may want to hold on to your votes, as I am attempting to line up a hi-res version with the photographer. Thanks. Outriggr 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: As of 21:12 the image has been re-uploaded with a resolution of 1440x960. I trust replacing the old file is sufficient (cuz it's more efficient). Thanks to Mr. Wilson for providing this. Outriggr 21:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While we're compiling a wish-list, I'd like to add that it looks like this particular image's shadows have been lifted a little too much and it looks quite fake to my eyes. If it is a bit too contrasty, I can understand the need to bring some detail out of the shadows, but don't over-do it as it loses contrast as a result. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A high-res version would likely alter my vote. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral A good picture, but size and resolution are a bit low... Once the new version comes in, you will have my support.  Viva La  V  i  e   Boheme  17:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support new high-res version. —Keenan Pepper 02:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The higher-res version addresses all my concerns. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice pic. Bizarre beaks on the birds. Resolution is fine by me (I never saw the apparently smaller version). --jjron 10:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it interesting also that the mandibles seem to develop either way—the top bending to the right in one bird and to the left in the other. Outriggr 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. With the slightly different colouring of the birds I originally wondered whether this was a male and female, and then thought that perhaps the different bending of the beaks may be another type of sexual dimorphism. Would have been nice, but alas you've said that they're both males. --jjron 09:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a female image here in case you haven't browsed that far. I'm no expert, but perhaps the less bright one is a juvenile. Outriggr 13:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Most excellent - Adrian Pingstone 15:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Beautiful and has a subtle sense of hilarity to it. – Morganfitzp 01:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Tack sharp and interesting subject --Abdominator 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd actually find a single bird better, since the one on the left is out of focus. The one on the right is gorgeous, and the bit of branch he's perching on is so photogenic. Having two males is, to my mind, redundant - a male and a female would have been more "useful", or a single male, centered (or better still, to the left since he's looking right) would be a more pleasing composition. It's still a very good photo, but the hypothetical single-bird reposition could have been an absolute stunner. Stevage 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but having two males shows us that sometimes the bill crosses over to the left and sometimes it crosses over to the right. With one male, you might be inclined to think that *all* males cross to the same side. So, in that sense, it's more encyclopedic to show both types. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If I'm not supposed to read sarcasm into that, forgive me. At any rate, a crop of the right bird would put us below the size threshhold, and while it would certainly be a nice picture too, there is a quirky, aesthetic quality of these two birds together that must be acknowledged! Why are they looking different directions? Are they looking for chicks? These things must be considered. Outriggr 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Chicks like baby birds or chicks like ... chicks? :)  howch e  ng   {chat} 00:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you were getting sarcasm, but I was being serious. The direction of beak curvature could well be an example of sexual dimorphism... it ISN'T in this case, but by showing two males (one curving left, and one curving right) we can SEE that it's not the case with this species. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Great focus/bokeh. Other images on that website are similarly brilliant (taken with fantastic equipment too!). Some one should really transfer more to wiki... --Fir0002 09:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and slowly but surely I am doing so! See Aplomado Falcon, American Wigeon, Cassin's Finch etc. Outriggr 14:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Cassin's Finch is sitting on the same perch. Were they taken in a studio? --liquidGhoul 02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (fixed your image link) Very observant. The photographer(s) practice "controlled perch" photography according to their website; basically, luring birds to the best place to take a photo of them. No studio - although I am now imagining the birds getting dolled up before their photo shoot, choosing the backdrop they want, and being told to cock their head just a bit. Outriggr 03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Great photo. --liquidGhoul 02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 09:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)