Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Buff-Banded Rail

Buff-banded Rail

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 00:11:28 (UTC)

Reason

The bird wasn't too shy, so the pic worked out well. Meets criteria IMO: High quality, nice colours, good light, active posture. This is a ground bird, so this is about the best you can hope for in terms of background separation.

Articles in which this image appears

Buff-banded Rail

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

Creator

99of9

• Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good, clear picture.
  AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Really nice photo. H. W. Calhoun (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC) User blocked as sockpuppet.[reply]
• Support —
  ²¹ 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Conditional Support Good detail, interesting pose. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like a good reason for the points raised below to fully support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can live with the explanation below. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose below minimum pixel count and not as sharp as it could be. --Pine^✉
  • File:Gallirallus philippensis - Herdsman Lake.jpg is quite similar, higher resolution, and also failed. Haha. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Below minimum pixel count, for a 100m lens it should be much larger, reason why it's uploaded this small? — raekyt 00:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I understand if you oppose based on pixel count alone (sorry, I prepared and uploaded this before the new rule came in, and forgot to check that aspect on nomination), I do not understand your 100mm comment at all. I think you must have got your calculations the wrong way around. For example, JJ's lens is 7 times more powerful than mine, (and his sensor is higher-res too), why would you expect a 100mm to get higher resolution than his 700mm (+extender?)? In fact I only got similar res, and the opportunity to use ISO100, because my subject was much closer than his. I've uploaded the original photo using the full sensor so you can check the crop:

  

  . These birds run away from people, and you just have to lie in the grass inching forward until one ignores you. --99of9 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. I can vouch for 100mm being pretty tough going for birds. Each picture should be judged independently of the equipment used in my view though. I'm sure 99of9 was much closer than I was. For the shot I took the bird pretty much cleared out of the reeds as I was blundering by. Then I got a couple of shots and it was gone again. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not the best lens for bird photography; but I'm happy with the result (comparing with other pictures available, including the failed one by JJ). You may increase a bit more pixels by using a more generous crop with more space at left and top. JKadavoor Jee 06:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Gallirallus philippensis Lord Howe Island 1.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]