Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Robin eating a worm in spring
Appearance
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Robin_eating_a_worm_in_spring.jpg/200px-Robin_eating_a_worm_in_spring.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Robin_eating_a_worm_in_spring_modified.jpg/200px-Robin_eating_a_worm_in_spring_modified.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/03/Robin_eating_a_worm_in_springEdit2.jpg/200px-Robin_eating_a_worm_in_springEdit2.jpg)
- Reason
- I got really lucky with this one, I saw a robin under thick thorny bushes, and it did not flee because it had a worm. This is one of the first robins of the season here in Victoria, BC. The bird is in focus and well framed, it is shown in it's natural environment demonstrating natural behavior. I believe this picture adds to the American Robin article in that it is the only picture showing a robin feeding. It also shows how the Robin's coloring helps it blend in with the broken/patchy light under a bush.
- Articles this image appears in
- American Robin, Earthworm
- Creator
- HighInBC (Ryan Bushby)
- Nominator
- HighInBC (Need help? Ask me)
- Note Edit 1 has been modified to remove the branch, I don't think this is an unencyclopedic doctoring, as the subject of the photo has not been modified, only the out of focus background/foreground. If you think you can do this better please do, I know it is not the best job in removing an object. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, My Edit fixes the foreground issue maybe not as obviously. The original felt a little low on the contrast side so I adjusted the levels. I'll change my vote to a neutral... -Fcb981 01:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support — HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Opposepreference to Edit 2 Only a few things bother me about this. One is the distracting object in the upper right corner, the other is the blur on the beak of the bird. The background is also kind of distracting and the lighting on the bird is not very uniform (this is pretty trivial) but the bird eating a staple food is very ENC. This one is very close. -Fcb981 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)- Weak Oppose As above. Midnight Rider 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Considering both the head and the worm are in focus, I don't think the beak is out of focus, I think it is just dirty from digging around. I agree that branch in the corner is distracting, it was my only angle. However the background and lighting are typical of the birds natural hunting ground, they prefer hunting under bushes for safety, so I think it adds encyclopedic value. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 06:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I wish it were more crisp, and I agree with Fcb, the lighting is uneven over the bird.--enano (Talk) 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is already a nice picture of this bird in the open, this picture brings something new to the article because the bird is in situation. This bird is colored to hide in uneven light in front of a broken background. Encyclopedic value should should be considered along with aesthetic concerns. Anyways since this is a self-nom I should not argue too much, perhaps I am biased. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose edit 2 the contrast adjustment blew up some of the highlights on the background twigs. I personally do not find the branch that distracting. in fact, I think the little green bit in the top left corner is much more distracting. Weak Support original, neutral to edit 1 (when I use tabs and compare original to #1, the cloning looks bad, but it really isn't that noticeable otherwise).-Andrew c 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- hmmmm, You don't like the blowing of the highlights. When I made it I thought that the contrast gains were worth the blown highlights. Obviously I could upload the edit without the contrast adjustment and it wouldn't be that hard to edit out the green bit on the left and I probably will do that if other people: 1)agree that highlights suck 2) think the focus and lighting is good enough on the original regardless of any edits (this is kind of how I am leaning. Let me know =) -Fcb981 02:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like there will be enough support for this image to pass, regardless what is done. Some people just do not like the shadows on the subject. If you'd like to try another edit for learning sake, go right ahead. You may want to adjust the curves, because it's easier to make contrast adjustments to certain ranges, while keeping the highlights (or shadows) from being effected. Or you could use a mask to have control over what areas you want effected. Good luck.-Andrew c 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree this is looking like a lost cause. I though the lighting was a benefit, but the taste of the community has shown otherwise. Feel free to tweak it though, because the article can still benefit from a higher quality version. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)