Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-necked Grebe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Red-necked Grebe -- Bronte Harbour, Oakville, Ontario -- 2005 August
Reason
Very sharp, no artifacts, excellent composition, perfectly captured the bird's personality
Articles this image appears in
Red-necked Grebe, List of Kansas birds, List of non-passerine birds of Korea, List of Iowa Birds
Creator
User:Mdf
Nominator
Althepal
Comment I don't think that the blurred wings detract at all from the picture, and even though the DOF was small, Mdf did a fine job. Anyhow, here's something that the picture teaches you: These birds often stand up in water and flap their wings while preening and playing. I don't know if you want to change your vote or anything, but it is something to think about. ;-) --Althepal 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they're blurry, that's common with moving things. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common in common photos, not so common in exceptional photos.. Technically this image is very good except in composition. If it were more front-on, the right hand wing would be less of an OOF blob and the blur would be easier to accept (IMHO anyway). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Beautiful shot -- Sturgeonman 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - This amount of wing blur is exactly what you are aiming for in wildlife photography. Also 700mm is a very standard focal length as this is a 500mm with a 1.4 TC. Nice catch. Wwcsig 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think it shows the bird's plumage exceptionally well. I don't see how the slight blur detracts from the photo or how it would be inappropriate given that it's showing the bird in action. Basar 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - It looks slightly too tight for the wings, but otherwise it's fine. typhoonchaser 16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Podiceps-grisegena-008.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]