Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pair of superb fairy wrens

Superb fairy-wrens

This clear and informative image shows a nesting pair of wrens with the male in his breeding plumage. I think the fact that both genders of the species are included adds significantly to the encyclopediac value. --Benjamint444 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

self nom and Support --Benjamint444 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the colors are almost too saturated, which upsets some folk. However, it is reasonably sharp, reasonably well composed, the exposure is very good, and so is the composition. It is also featured on the commons, which can be a plus. Good work, it has my support. And I agree, having the male and female right next to each other ups the encyclopedic value (plus, capturing that situation isn't the easiest thing to do).-Andrew c 06:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Yes, the "blown blue" severely distracts. Otherwise, very nice. --Janke | Talk 08:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Janke. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support meh; I felt like opposing due to the blueness but all in all it is a nice image. Good enc value. ~ Arjun 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oppose - Very nice. I hope the birds are ok with that flash. --Arad 16:41, 15

February 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposing not because I don't like the image, but because I feel betrayed by the uploader and the nominator (both the same user: Benjamint444.) You should have told us that this is made out of two images. --Arad 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - I agree with the others. It is very nice, but the over-saturation makes the picture too hard to look at. Partially desaturated the blue as an edit, and I think it will be worthy. Althepal 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~conditional~~strong oppose - there appears to be a stitching error on the left side of the male. It is most obvious in the fence and his tail. I sould switch to weak support if this was fixed. Debivort 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's a stitching error? ~~And why does the picture show that it is a featured picture already?~~ - Oh, that is for the commons. I wish Benjamint444 would replace the picture with my edit. Althepal 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A stitching error occurs when two images are aligned to make a single larger image. It is typically noticable as discontinuous edges, or repeated elements such as in this picture. Here is a blow up of the stitching error in this nomination. Debivort 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, wow, I didn't notice that! Maybe reduce noise for the left edge of the picture would help a little. Anyhow, I still think that my edit is featured picture worthy, even with that error. Althepal 23:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's in the original too, not just your edit. I'd like to see it fixed though... Debivort 23:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A stiched pic, are you kidding. Like the bird would hold still for multipul shots. -Fcb981 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well look at it - it's some kind of seam. It's very apparent. As Stevage points out it might also be compositing from separate shots. I'm switching my vote to strong oppose. Debivort

Is it possible that it is a software, ram, editing thing. Like someone ran a Despeckle filter that because of lack of ram or something crashed partway through the image. That sounds farfetched even to myself but a stiched image? Idk. -Fcb981 08:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stiching seems extraordinarily likely now, considering the other nominee by this contributor is a composite. Debivort 17:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1 - Great pic without the 'blown blue'. Iorek85 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how do you know the edit is closer to how those birds looked?! And you cannot just unblow a blown region. Blown means information is lost. Desaturating doesn't bring it back. --Dschwen(A) 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's a lot of photoshopping going on along the fence, and forming two large rectangles, one around each bird. I strongly suspect this is a composite of at least 2 - one with just the male, one with just the female. See the vertical line between the two birds? See the very obviously photoshopped place where two bits of wire cross at the very bottom of the photo, towards the left? See how the wire that the male is standing on doesn't really seem to connect up with the bit on the other side of the bit the female is on? Also the background has been worked on, sometimes it's sharp, sometimes blurry. The "stitching error" noticed is probably due to differing focal lengths. I don't object to photoshopping per se, but this is just clumsy. Stevage 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the male was stitched over the picture of the female. ~~I'll try to make an edit which hides this...~~ - It is too hard to fix this. Althepal 03:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support either~~ Oppose - Now I see it; I don't think the birds would be looking at each other like that anyway. This is unrepresentative of the species, and therefore unenc. Mrug ² 15:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither bird casts a shadow. ~ trialsanderrors 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both on technical grounds (bad photoshopping). Such a montage isn't wrong per se, but it has to be clearly labeled. This makes me feel deceived by the uploader :-( --Dschwen(A) 08:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we please see the unphotoshopped original(s)? Thanks, --Janke | Talk 11:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also the other nomination by the same uploader: WP:FPC/silvereye juveniles. ~ trialsanderrors 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image suggests that it is an untouched photograph and not a composite; if it is composite, there ought to be some obvious element (like a line) separating the parts. — brighterorange (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are opposing, but ARG! there are several lines that have been pointed out in the discussion! Debivort 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were suggesting what changes should have happened to the photo if it were a composite, not what symptoms there should be of a composite. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh haha, of course! Thanks for point this out Diliff. Sorry to have jumped on you brighterorange. Debivort 05:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Image is a composite, but you hardly need me to confirm it. Theres a lot of people opposing this image 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 even the fact that the birds are perching together, this not an uncommon occurence, merely uncommon to have a photo of them sitting together. All I have done is spend some time doctoring the photo instead of spending some time outside with my camera. The mistakes are clumsy as user stevage said, but do they deteriorate from the image that much? The image got the whole way through the commons FPC without anyone noticing so does anyone here really think that they would be noticed by anyone not scrutinising the image? Someone using this image for enc. or identificational purposes would certainly miss these. If I uploaded another version of this image without the clumsy photoshop mistakes would the reaction from voters be any different? No, I answer myself. One of stronges reactions to this photo has been from user:trialsanderrors who has also voted for it's delisting on commons, many people including trialsanderrors have also voted against my Silvereye nomination here and on commons, The common link between these images are that 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

There is something fictional about the image - the existence of two birds in it. If it was a matter of time spent outside or equal time spent photoshopping, I would suggest the time outside. The bulk of the rest of your argument boils down to "this forged dollar bill is OK because if I had done a better job forging it, you wouldn't have noticed it's a fake." True there is no criteria banning composites, but yours are more than composites, they invent a reality which never existed - thereby reducing the encyclopedic value. An alternative, which would likely have passed, would have been simply placing two well cropped images, one of each sex, next to each other with a little strip of white space in between - like the scientific panels you see in field guides. No made up reality there, and no shock among the FPC crowd when they realized it was assembled out of multiple images. Debivort 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'This reality' didn't exist at the moment when I took the photo but to say "a reality that never existed" is taking it to far, scenes such as this happen every day - Is there anyone here who has never seen two birds perching together? --Benjamint444 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then stake it, don't fake it. --Dschwen(A) 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you make the noise levels and contrast in both pictures 100% equal before stacking? Althepal 00:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a better stitch. --Arad 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Somehow, I don't think this image is as pleasing to the mind now, knowing that it is not original. Mrug ² 13:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The uploader has not been straight about the provenance of this image. When it came up for FP consideration on Commons he made the extremely misleading comment that "I only get a few weeks each year to get a got shot and they rarely stay put for more than a few seconds in direct sunlight, thus the flash. It's also not very common for them both to be on the same perch for long enough to get a photo", clearly implying that it was a hard image to get as he had to wait for both birds to be in shot together. --MichaelMaggs 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose and comment As much as the picture seems OK to me (I don't have the knowhow to scrutinise too closely), I am afraid I have to agree with the "pictures should reflect reality" stance most people are taking, and as it appears people who have expertise have noticed technical problems due to the stitching I would suggest uploading separate images (if they're big enough) would be the best way forward for the uploader, especially as he might get two FP's out of it (if people haven't been put off by their initial contact with the uploader). Terri G 12:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]