Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Polytelis anthopeplus 2.jpg

Support Edit 1. Seems a touch overexposed (beak and breast) but otherwise another quality photo. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would second that. Can it be re-developed with more balanced values? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks ok to me. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare to edit 1? The difference is quite subtle (didn't need a huge amount), but I think it's an improvement. NS's feedback welcome too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ditto J Milburn. Great shot!
NYer 19:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Edit 1. Lovely. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 -- Benjamint 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 - very very nice. Elekhh (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think this should be redone properly, from raw. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your objection (in reality, not in theory) to edit 1? It could be reprocessed from RAW, but I think the benefit would be minimal. There isn't any blown highlights, just slight overexposure. And the overexposure is mainly in areas of detail, so any benefit of working with a colour space larger than 8 bit is largely lost in situations like that - you simply wouldn't notice any introduced posterisation. So is it really worth insisting on reprocessing it from RAW in this case? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Polytelis anthopeplus 2 edit1.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]