Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rufous Fantail

Juvenile Rufous Fantail

 * Reason:Sharp, well lit, clean background - in short a high quality image of a wild bird
 * Articles this image appears in:Fantail, Rufous Fantail
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 12:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This one is looking pretty good sharpness and lighting wise Noodle snacks (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the way the branch intrudes into the foreground is distracting, but more significantly, the talon on the right side is completely blurred, while the talon the left is sharp. It goes from blurry to sharp so quick that it looks more like a post processing thing than DOF transition or motion blur (?). Indeed the bokeh is really too strong for me; I think the lead image in Fantail looks more natural, showing some in-focus branches the bird is sitting on.  Attaching the animal to its environment adds to its EV, in my view; I just want enough blur to keep the emphasis on the subject.   Fletcher (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is some motion blur on the wing actually, but otherwise it looks very sharp. The shallow DOF is mainly because the branch that the bird is perched on is almost in line with the view of the camera, which accentuates it. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah the DOF is entirely natural and is created in the way Diliff mentioned above (I was semi-hiding behind the tree trunk). The alternative shows part of a nearby tree if you prefer it. Also yes there is some minor blur on the wings (from memory it was startled by the sound of the shutter) despite 1/1600s --Fir0002 22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the alt a bit more but don't think the FP should be obscured by the branch. Fletcher (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the branch is much of an issue:   . Also I think your sentiments here are relevant, in that yes you could find fault with the branch, but realistically this is about as good as it gets for wild birds. --Fir0002 00:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor composition in both cases. The branch interferes in both photos. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original despite the branch and some minor blurring. This photo illustrates the subject very well. The bird is easy to see against the background. Wronkiew (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose alternative 1 it is not in any articles and should not be put into any articles as the original image shows the same subject matter but has greater encyclopaedic value - it shows more of the bird. Guest9999 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The general practise is to replace the original in articles with the Alt generally. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Images with less encyclopaedic value should not be used in articles because they could be featurable. The original image is a better depiction of the bird for use in the encyclopaedia and should be used in the articles it is currently present in over the alternative image; even if the alternative image has technical qualities that could make a difference at FPC. Guest9999 (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of the alternative is to give people an option - whichever version people like most will go into the article. So if the majority thought the Alt was a better image then it would replace the original. If the majority thought the original was best then it would stay. So perhaps you could state your preference in a positive rather than negative fashion :) --Fir0002 08:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An example: File:Poster-sized portrait of Barack Obama OrigRes.jpg is the lead image in Barack Obama, it is probably not featurable, File:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg is a featured image of Barack Obama but it will never replace the other image in the article. Another example: remember that picture of a bird that received massive support a few months back only to be removed from the article it was in by the editors' who maintained because it showed an atypical pose? The factors that matter at FPC can differ from the factors that determine whether an image should be placed in an article and from the process of peer review that keeps that image in the article; since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not just a collection of great pictures the former does not take precedence. I'm not trying to be negative and I think both images are very well taken shots, I am only unsure as to whether support the original because of the extremely high standard for this type of image that has been set by editors including yourself. Guest9999 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if that alternative had been listed in the nomination of the other image it would probably have been chosen instead which is the point here - to let others help choose which image should be the one to illustrate the article. And if you think that's the original then that's fine. You're welcome to your opinion on the matter but I would argue that this image is well up to standard for wild birds (note that it is unreasonable to demand the same quality for a wild bird photo as for an easily accessible flower in the same way it is unreasonable to demand that quality from a historical image) --Fir0002 00:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that FPC is a place to set out article content or decide whether an image should be used in an article; it should be used to evaluate images used in articles against the criteria. An image of a bird is always going to have greater encyclopaedic value than one of that a bird partially obscured by a branch, especially when they are as similar as the images in this nomination. Guest9999 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

--Noodle snacks (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support--Avala (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Branch obscuring legs and lower (from gravity's point of view) part of abdomen. Motion blur on foreground wing. Beautiful picture, but damn. :\ The alt is good too, but it has too much obscured by the branch, and could use some more DOF. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But nothing is obscured by the branch in the original...? Also refer to the examples I cited above to Fletcher - to me picking on the branch seems like looking at this nom from the perspective of finding an excuse to not support! --Fir0002 01:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may find, if you look at your own images again closely, that the proportion of the bird covered by the branch in the original is much less than in the alternative. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)