Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crescent Honeyeater Edit.jpg

Crescent Honeyeater

Original - A Crescent Honeyeater (Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus). Native to eastern Australia and Tasmania.

Edit 1 by Fir0002 - NR and slightly ligthened

Edit 2 by Peripitus - slight NR and colour balance change

Reason: Meets the quality guidelines. Was lucky to get so close (taken with a 200mm lens)
Articles this image appears in: Crescent_Honeyeater, (Has been on the front page for a DYK)
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support either, preference for Edit 1 2 as nominator My preference would now be for edit one as well. --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either with preference for Edit 1. Nice capture - and as you say pretty lucky to get so close! --Fir0002 12:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 or 2 Excellent color, clarity and background diffusion, WB corrected Capital photographer (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Nice. Mfield (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either edit. Can you elaborate on where the image was taken? --Blechnic (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken in Austins Ferry, Tasmania, in my garden (hence not planning to give the exact location). Noodle snacks (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either. Another fine one from ~~Fir0002~~ Keep up the good work. :) Durova^Charge! 23:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it's a fine one from Noodle snacks - I just did the edit :) --Fir0002 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eating my hat. Hm, it's chicken flavored! :) Durova^Charge! 07:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Chris 73 | Talk 07:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely image but the poor bird is jaundiced. Support edit 2 where I've moved the blue channel to get the breast a more realistic colour - Peripitus (Talk) 10:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh gosh, I missed that. I am greatly amused though that the master of WB Fir002 also missed it Oh well, only human. Capital photographer
  - Except the dry leaf behind now looks distinctly red. I think part of the color is the reflections from the surrounding foliage. The bird has a very slight red tinge as well. Maybe back it off very slightly? Noodle snacks (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yikes, the CRT I was using did not show up the now seriously warped colour balance in edit2. Now on my cinema display and using the PS eye dropper to confirm, I see a lot of areas that have being turned pink and orange. Bird looks fairly ok, but given the errors in surrounding area, I'll revert to supporting edit1. Capital photographer (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Before you made this comment, I was about to mention that. The bird was, by the looks of it, taken near sunset so it is simply lit with warm light and doesn't need too much correction. To overcompensate for that would ruin the ambience IMO. Besides, I'm not sure whether these thoughts are backed up with science, but I think that the light at sunset is somewhat more monochromatic (due to blue light scattering) and, like some incandescent and fluorescent light, cannot be completely WB-corrected. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - PS, does that mean that despite trying to have a dig at Fir0002, you actually ended up just making yourself look silly again? ;-) Also, I quote you from a previous nom of his: "Stuff eye dropper values"! Do you suddenly see the use for them in objectively critiquing an image? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Hehe yes I second Diliff's sentiments - about the near sunset colouration of course :) And FWIW you probably noticed on your cinema display Capital photographer, that I did recognise the colour cast and gave it a mild tweak in the blues (+6 in Photoshop) in my edit. I didn't think it need much due to sunset colouration. That said Edit 2 is probably a better WB, although it seems to have made the bird a bit green - which in some ways is worse than a yellow cast because at least the yellow cast can be attributed to sunset. But both edits are pretty good IMO --Fir0002 01:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some day I must learn to colour correct properly - I've adjusted it again for localised colour balance but my skills are lacking - Peripitus (Talk) 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your new edit is much improved. I'm still not sure it was really necessary though, but NR is nice. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm happy with any edit passing - Wish I had the patience to get such a good small bird picture. I just feel that the original has the bird too yellow. It's back should be brown and breast whiter than the original - Peripitus (Talk) 00:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect bird portrait. Clegs (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply gorgeous. Love how its toes grip the stalk. Fletcher (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 It looks the best of the three, although any of them would be good.Greener Cactus (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Don't see the need for an edit in this case. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Crescent Honeyeater Edit2.jpg MER-C 03:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]