Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/silvereye juveniles

Silvereye Juveniles being fed
This shot was taken in an orchard (thus the OOF netting in the BG) the two juveniles on the left are sharp and clear, the adult is, unfortunately OOF but it still adds to the image as it is feeding the chick some fruit.
 * Self-nom and support.--Benjamint444 05:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I can clearly see that the focus, lighting, etc. of the picture are very good. what is obvious though is the high levels of artifacts. As it is now I would have to oppose but if you have an uncompressed version I would try uploading a much less compressed alternative and I might support. -Fcb981 06:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support An interesting shot, good enc, sharp where it needs to be. The technical problems (grain, shallow DOF) could be minimized by some downsampling - it's now over 3500 px. PS: I'd put it as a thumb with a caption on the silvereye page, a one-pic gallery is kinda goofy... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How would downsampling minimize the technical problems, esp. DOF? Your wouldn't get more detail in the slightly out of focus regions, but instead you would loose detail in the perfectly in-focus regions. Sounds like a foul deal to me. --Dschwen(A) 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "How would downsampling minimize the technical problems, esp. DOF?" - well, a smaller picture always looks sharper - can you see any DOF problem in the thumbnail? ;-) Seriously, if an image is downsampled by, say. 50%, you really don't loose that much detail (especially if done from the original - here, it looks like the image has been sharpened), but the downsampled image looks much better on-screen. We shouldn't stare ourselves blind on max. resolution, it's more important how good an image looks on screen. In this case my feeling is that downsampling might work - but I wouldn't suggest it for one of Diliff's megapanoramas, for instance. Also, for me, print resolution is of secondary importance. I don't think Wikipedia's possible future print version needs 3500+ pixels of this image. (As for non-wiki use, I certainly couldn't care less. ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A sarcastic counterargument would go as follows: 640kB sould be enough for any user. ;-). But seriously, with picture-zoom-buttons in every decent browser, who needs to have the downsampling done for him? (dialup-users? sheesh those shouldn't download fullsize pics anyways) --Dschwen(A) 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In browser downsampling isn't so great... gren グレン 12:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Use Konqueror with gwenview as a fullsize imageviewer. Fixing problems caused by faulty software on the user-side by uploading degraded pictures seems like a bad idea to me. --Dschwen(A) 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, criteria 8, "Has a good caption", is not met. I would also argue that criteria 5, "Adds value to an article" is not met because it's a little thumb sitting below the text with no explanation.  Fix those and I'd probably give at least a weak support. gren グレン 12:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the problems mentioned by gren and Janke, I didn't realise user:Brett.donald had made changes to the article and made a mess. I will downsample the image if there are more requests for it but the commons voters haven't had any problem with it so far. Benjamint444 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Very nice subject, poor setting though. M rug  2  03:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Strong Oppose - Well done Trialsanderrors -  M rug  2  15:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose I don't mind the blurriness but one side effect is that whatever the chick is being fed is unrecognizable. Also, the full frontal flash creates an oversharpening effect. I'm surprised no one tried to edit this though. ~ trialsanderrors 08:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, until the following is clarified: Might this be an edited image? There is a "seam" of sorts between the two juveniles, especially notable in the green leaf, which kind of disappears halfway. The wire they sit on appear to be mirror image of one another (note the duplication of dirt and rust spots). Can we see the original image(s), please? --Janke | Talk 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comparison edit. The left part of the image is a mirrored version of the right, and it is very likely that they depict the same chick. (Note also the background and the leaf.) ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * strong oppose - per Janke and trialsanderrors. Debivort 23:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * strong oppose. Clarify manipulation issue. --Dschwen(A) 08:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This picture is currently a FPC at Commons. ~ trialsanderrors 09:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, The Image is a composite and it does show the same chick twice, I'll see if I can find the originals, And I have A query, does it matter that it's a composite? the chick on the left certainly adds to the enc. value, also without the extra chick the image would be cropped much closer making the OOF adult much more noticable. --Benjamint444 03:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comment from benjamint444 The Image is a composite, but you hardly need me to confirm it. Theres a lot of people opposing this image here and on commons because you can tell it has been doctored but it dosn't seem to say anywhere in the criteria that images can't be composites, they have to be factual certainly. And their is nothing fictional about this image the fact that their are more than one chicks merely condenses more enc. value into the photo. Does the fact that it was done in photoshop instead of outside really deteriorate from the image that much? The image nearlly got the whole way through the commons FPC without anyone noticing different? No, I answer myself. This image and the Blue wrens one here and on commons have for a large part been opposed because they are both composites, not that they both have technical problems. In neither case does the fact that it is a composite detract from the enc. value. Can anyone quote where it says in the nomination criteria that images must not be composites? Benjamint
 * Well aside from the fact that its tacky, suggesting that this is the way a mother would feed multiple chicks or that they regularly coexist like this, that is, sitting on different objects instead of all together.. (however subtle or unimportant the implication), makes the image factually inaccurate. Seriously, If anything you should've moved the two birds on the right down and placed the bird on the left next to them on the wire so that you don't have a mirroring effect.  drumguy8800   C   T  06:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, just a suggestion, a flash is never a good substitute for a tripod.. and if you're using a tripod, you shouldn't be using a flash unless you're using a handheld one that you can aim so that it doesn't provide a distracting gloss on the shinier parts of your subjects and so that the coloration isn't skewed. drumguy8800   C   T  06:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I opposed this one on technical grounds before Janke pointed at the potential manipulation issues, but I agree with the general sentiment that falsifications such as this should not be made FP since the image with only the adult and the chick once depicts the scene more accurately (a FPC criterion). And this doesn't even touch on the false statements you made in your nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I made no false statements on my nomination, I didn't mention that it was a composite since nowhere in the criteria does it say it's an issue to be voted on. I observed several fammilies of these birds feeding together and there were often times when chicks even from seperate nests would sit together or just a few feet apart and be fed by the adults. For the practicle purposes of this image the chick is two different birds and very likely to be from a seperate nest, it is therfore unlikely for it to sit any closer to the other chick as it would be being fed by a different set of addults. --Benjamint444 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)