Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Phalacrocorax fuscescens

Black-faced Cormorant(s)[edit]

Reason: Quality is reasonable and only a very small quantity of photographs exist on wiki of the species.
Articles this image appears in: Black-faced Cormorant, (alt is in Bruny Island as well)
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original - Definitely a great photo. I like the look of the water in the background as well. These things have some cool eyes. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have two little niggles with this picture. First, do you have a version with less DOF? I find the background a bit nervous and distracting, and it won't be particularly easy to adjust the lighting in post-processing since the same hues are used throughout the picture, bird or sea! The second problem is that the Mr. Bird's tail vanishes behind the plank. Knowing the length and shape of the tail turns out to be quite useful as a rough guide to cormorant species, so I feel it would be a shame not to have it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have quite a few alts to go through for the first one, so I'll have a look a bit later. I have to stop down with the teleconverter to get things tack sharp generally (hence not much BG blur). Noodle snacks (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is one with the tail visible, but it is leaning forward in an unnatural pose, so the EV isn't so good. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just out of curiosity how come the EXIF doesn't match up with your description? --Fir0002 11:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It does for shutter speed/iso, doesn't match on focal length or aperture since I taped the pins on my teleconverter in order to get some degree of autofocus at F8 (Slow but works fine in plenty of light).
        Ah well that's a handy tip! I'll have to try that out... Any side-effects/warnings about the operation? --Fir0002 12:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
        I think the AF system in the 400D is the same as the 20D. It works best if you manual focus pretty closely then use AF to fine tune it. Sometimes it will oscillate around the focus point if there isn't enough contrast.I wouldn't bother with it unless you have very bright sunlight and a tripod, optimum sharpness is achieved stopped down, and F11 isn't very fast!. I've gotten some shots that I wouldn't otherwise have been able to get though. I don't really use the TC as often as I should, since I prefer to go walking with the 400 in my hands rather than lugging about a tripod. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh yeah, I'd use it in one shot mode when using this trick, tends to hunt and muck about too much in AI servo and its too slow to track a moving target anyway. I also suspect some AF inaccuracy is the reason it looks better stopped down (my 70-200 looked better with a teleconverter wide open) Noodle snacks (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks snap and just doesn't stand out to me. Whereas some of your other work really does. Like the next candidate below. Omnibus (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~
IP user never came back to sign in... Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I like this picture. It correctly illustrates the animal and is a very high quality picture (technically speaking). Not only could this be a featured picture but it would make as a good Picture of the Day some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.217.236 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Unfortunately IP addresses don't have suffrage at FPC, please log in to vote. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support original Visible ripples communicate that this is a waterfowl. Durova^Charge! 01:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The case has been made that the original is to be preferred; photographically, it's the better picture, but many pictures have walked the plank here for having part of a subject cut off or obscured, and this, unfortunately, will be another one. And while I sympathise with the idea that it's desirable for the background to communicate proximity to water, I think a little more bokeh would have helped here as well. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alternate 1 --Muhammad(talk) 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 06:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]