Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Turdus Merula female

A young female Blackbird (Turdus merula)

 * Reason:High resolution shot, made with a Maksutov 300mm telescope. Shows the female Blackbird appearence in contrast to the male specimen appearing in the taxobox.
 * Articles this image appears in:Blackbird
 * Creator:User:Dschwen


 * Support Edit 2 as nominator &mdash; Dschwen 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lack of contrast. Try the Photoshop command Image/Adjust/Autolevels for a major improvement in contrast - Adrian Pingstone 12:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The OOF items in the foreground are mighty distracting. --Bridgecross 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what can you expect from a 150 EUR russian mirror telescope? Circular bokeh! :-) Anyway, I tried to adress both points with an edit. --Dschwen 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tech question: Are you using the telescope as a prime lens, or in front of a prime? --Janke | Talk 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Prime lens on a 5D. I have an adapter from T2 to EOS mount. --Dschwen 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow 5D! Your own? --Fir0002 11:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been contemplating that investment for quite some time, and I made it a combined ph.D. and wedding present to myself :-) --Dschwen 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Contrats on that mate. Getting the Camera that is ; ) -Fcb981 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the fuzzy object in front of the bird. — The Storm Surfer 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 3 A little better. 8thstar 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh, so I fix one thing and people come up with another reason? Come on, it's not like that straw is in front of the birds head. What is it obscuring? --Dschwen 07:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. To my eyes the photo looks a hundred times better at full size than in thumbnail.  The straw in the foreground is basically transparent.  Otherwise it looks great, with lovely detail. Pstuart84 Talk 09:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support (edit 2, edit 3 is also OK with me) per above. A natural habitat is bound to have some obscuring stuff... --Janke | Talk 09:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd support this - it's a very natural shot, well resolved etc - but you've overcooked the contrast on your revision and blown some subtle detail. It just needed a *small* adjustment to counteract the lack of contrast in your cheapo lens ;) mikaultalk 16:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are completely right. Edit1 was over the top. I redid it with moderation and additionally put a lot more work into finetuning the mask separating the foreground from the blurred bg. --Dschwen 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * proposal I would support this with the yellow obstructing blade of grass cloned out. But I would only bother to spend the time to clone it out if people wouldn't vote against it because of that cloning. Anyone think that modification is a particularly good or bad idea?Debivort 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I love the picture but that yellow straw kills me. Leave the rest of the blurred foreground, though.  Enuja 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, doctoring the picture like that seems a little dirty to me. The Storm Surfer 23:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support edit 2, for reasons stated above. I will also would probably support a decently cloned version, if it came to it, edit 3 but I really don't have a problem with the OOF grasses; they seem perfectly appropriate to the subject to me. mikaultalk 23:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit2 or Edit3 - It was harder to do than I expected, but here is a version in which the most annoying grass blade has been cloned out. Debivort 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support edit 3 I do like this image with the alterations as noted --New t on2 12:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 3. I'm a huge fan.  The bird looks like she is staring at you, the feathers are fantastically clear, and the remaining blurry stems and background give context.  Enuja 00:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, I just now looked at the page. You are absolutely and completely sure that this is Turdus merula, right? Enuja 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A request for an opinion was placed at WP:BIRD. I have to say it looks like a young Blackbird to me. Sexual dimorphism in plumage is fairly common in birds. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  07:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The ID has been confirmed in triplicate, btw. Debivort 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support original, edit2, edit3. Foreground grass is fine, adds to sense of depth, obscures nothing --AGoon 13:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment caption should be Turdus merula not Turdus Merula. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, changed. --Dschwen 14:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support all but edit1. Very nice one I think ! Blieusong 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 3 --Arad 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1. Great quality and clarity. What else can I say? - Po we rf ul mi nd please talk to me ! look at all of my edits ! 01:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 3. Love the shot, the only thing is the bird looks like it has one leg because it has one tucked up into its feathers... Calliopejen1 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose – uninteresting composition, blurry grass gets in the way. Could use a closer crop. --jacobolus (t) 05:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 3 The pic looks much better with the blurry grass blade removed. Encyclopedic and unique.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 06:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it unique? — The Storm Surfer 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I previously believed that all blackbirds were black...but this pic proves otherwise. Most pics are of the male blackbird, which are indeed black. There aren't that many pics of female blackbirds, which are not black.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If this were the only blackbird that isn't black, then the photo might be unique, but in fact many (I'd even say most, since juvenile males are also apparently not black) blackbirds are not black. — The Storm Surfer 00:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 3 Per all above.--HereToHelp 21:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Distracting objects in front of the subject. ShadowHalo 12:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 3 The focus is centered on the wing of the bird, rather than the head (which I personally like better). However, this isn't a good enough reason to oppose, because it's not as if the head was fuzzy or anything major... · AndonicO Talk 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Compared to the numerous other shots of animals we have this is too busy. The blurred grass in the foreground in not pleasing to the eye and distracting.  C e n t y   00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

--YFB ¿  13:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)