Ruffed Grouse
- Reason
- High quality image with great colours and lighting
- Articles this image appears in
- Ruffed Grouse
- Creator
- Mdf
- Support as nominator -- Fir0002 05:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support. Very nice and sharp where it needs to be, but it is a shame that low light/use of the flash has given it a slightly ghostly appearance (left leg and just behind the head) as it was, I assume, walking when this was taken. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Yeah, what's going on with the leg- is that motion blur? (This is an attractive image, and I have already used it to replace the existing image of the Ruffed Grouse in
List of U.S. state birds (it's the state bird of my fair Commonwealth).
Spikebrennan (
talk) 14:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is motion blur. It looks like it was a fairly slow exposure combined with flash, which allows the ambient light to help light the scene naturally, but allows the flash to freeze the subject in the foreground. At least, thats how it usually works, but if the exposure is too slow and there is a lot of movement you often get a ghost trailing that movement. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose due to distracting noises on the background, and unattractive composition.-- Caspian blue 03:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Frankly in Mdf's shoes I would have been cranking the ISO to 1600 or so and reducing the quantity of fill flash to achieve a more natural look. I think he was trying to freeze the motion. My bet is that this was taken with a 300mm F4L IS and a teleconverter. It is a definite VP with an easily added latin binomial. Noodle snacks ( talk) 01:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support What a cool photo with the pastel colors, multiple textures, and sharp bird. Motion blur on something that is moving seems ok. Quite an achievement at 1/30 with a teleconverter as well. At ISO 1600 I think the picture would be grainy and (with less flash) boring.
Tomfriedel (
talk) 14:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
-
File:Silvereye.jpg is a FP at ISO 1600 without noise problems and I kind of think the noise levels of my 400D would be rather outclassed by the 1D-MkIII used to take the above shot.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 01:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's amazing - you must have lucked out with your version of the 400D, because I'd be damn sure mine wouldn't handle that. For the most part I've given up on shooting at ISO 800 for noise and softness problems, and where possible even avoid ISO 400. --
jjron (
talk) 13:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I remember with my Xti I was always avoiding ISO 400, but I think (but am not sure) that was more my (low) experience level than necessity. I've read that a large image sensor really help with low ISO settings, and with the 5D I use now I don't think twice about ISO400. So I don't have the answer, but The-digital-picture.com has some nice camera/noise comparisons for Canon cameras.
- In my experience, the higher the ISO goes the worse the noise gets in the shadow areas, the highlights aren't affected nearly so much. So long as you expose well and the subject doesn't have too much contrast you can get pretty good results. ISO 400 has plenty of shadow grain, but very little noise in the better exposed areas. Noodle snacks ( talk) 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I remember with my Xti I was always avoiding ISO 400, but I think (but am not sure) that was more my (low) experience level than necessity. I've read that a large image sensor really help with low ISO settings, and with the 5D I use now I don't think twice about ISO400. So I don't have the answer, but The-digital-picture.com has some nice camera/noise comparisons for Canon cameras.
- That's amazing - you must have lucked out with your version of the 400D, because I'd be damn sure mine wouldn't handle that. For the most part I've given up on shooting at ISO 800 for noise and softness problems, and where possible even avoid ISO 400. --
jjron (
talk) 13:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
-
File:Silvereye.jpg is a FP at ISO 1600 without noise problems and I kind of think the noise levels of my 400D would be rather outclassed by the 1D-MkIII used to take the above shot.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 01:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment And you guys have let some technically weak photos go through recently, like for example this one where only I opposed:
Image:Cyanistes_caeruleus_3_Luc_Viatour.jpg
Tomfriedel (
talk) 14:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- That image isn't a FP on the English Wikipedia, only on commons.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 01:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- With bird photos I usually look at the head pixels and feet pixels first, to see if the photo is of enough quality. So for me this photo easily exceeds, for example, the last English Wikipedia bird FP. Tomfriedel ( talk) 15:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- That image isn't a FP on the English Wikipedia, only on commons.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 01:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support personally I'd prefer a slight crop but overall a sharp, attractive and technically decent image. Guest9999 ( talk) 04:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So, what is it? Unnatural and confusing, or a FP with minor issues? Please discuss. Wronkiew ( talk) 21:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support either, with a slight preference for Edit 1. This image provides a clear and extremely encyclopedic view of this bird, and any technical fault it may have (which I, to be completely honest with you fail to see) does not detract from its superb value and as such is irrelevant to this proceeding, as I see it. Mad Tinman T C 21:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I find it unnatural and confusing. I think another picture of this bird could be taken fairly easily, so I can't ignore the problems with this photo. Makeemlighter ( talk) 05:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
No Consensus -- Noodle snacks ( talk) 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
