Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ring-billed Gull

Ring-billed Gull

 * Reason:Yes, I know, we have several other FPs of Gulls. We do not, however have one of a Ring-billed gull and I think this is as good a picture as any. Sharpness, detail, size, informative angle. I know that the light could have been a little better and the composition can be seen as a bit bland but I think overall it is FP quality.
 * Proposed caption:A Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) at Nantasket Beach, Massachusetts. Clearly visible is the dark ring on the bill of the Gull from which its name is derived.
 * Articles this image appears in:Ring-billed Gull
 * Creator:User:Fcb981


 * Support as nominator (Self nom) Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I uploaded the edit after a second look at the image and the RBG histogram showed me what I feared. The color was very yellow shifted. I did the RAW conversion on a computer I wasn't used to and I guess I set the wrong WB. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. Still way too yellow. Also, the neck looks unnatural - it appears the gull is walking along the beach, and the shutter snapped just when the neck was in this unattractive position - or does this bird have no neck? ;-) --Janke | Talk 05:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Enclosed is a small example (not for voting) of what I think the color balance should be like. Looking at it, it also appears thet there's no detail in the breast feathers - blown highlight? (All uniform yellow in the original.) --Janke | Talk 05:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fullsize please :( --⁪frotht 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's better if the photographer does this from the raw file. That's why I left my example small. --Janke | Talk 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, Janke. Here is an edit. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The detail is just not there, it almost looks like it was run through a posterize filter. Noclip 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Noclip, and I oppose. It is large, yes, but there is quite a fair amount of picture fragmentation in the background, and there are very few details in the picture to be awed by. -- Altiris   Helios   Exeunt  07:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 11:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)