Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Swallow-tailed gull

Swallow-tailed gull[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2012 at 19:57:34 (UTC)

**Original** – Swallow tailed gull, the only nocturnal gull hence the huge eyes, almost entirely endemic to the Galapagos Islands for breeding but a wide-spread pelagic during the rest of the year. The red ring around the eye show that this individual is in breeding condition.

Reason: EV, IQ
Articles in which this image appears: gull, Swallow-tailed Gull
FP category for this image: bird
Creator: Benjamint 19:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator --Benjamint 19:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Fails criteria 2. Dusty777 22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pity though, I reckon (same with image below). JJ Harrison (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't say they fail the criteria, I would say the criteria has failed them. I can see why the min was raised but I don't like seeing images slightly larger and much lower quality passing. Resolution shouldn't be such a black and white line; it should be a gradient based on mitigating circumstances and quality IMO but I don't doubt I'm outnumbered on this Benjamint 07:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution has a great deal to do with the quality of the picture. Allows you to see more detail and increases the EV. The only times that this part of the criteria is overlooked is in historical pictures (with few exceptions otherwise.) Do you happen to have a higher resolution picture available? Dusty777 19:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Benjamint, I agree with you that the minimum size shouldn't be a bright line rule, and I don't treat it that way myself. However, this photo is well below the minimum size and we should be able to get a larger size photo of this subject. This isn't a historic photograph that's irreplaceable. Thanks for your interest in Featured Pictures. --Pine^✉ 08:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolution has much less of an impact on EV and detail than you imply Dusty. Case in point this image of 500px below the limit but of above average IQ vs File:Prodasineura verticalis, Burdwan, West Bengal, India 13 09 2012.jpg which is a 100px above the limit, and that's good enough for Pines despite the whole raft of technical problems, such as the fact that no single part of the image is actually sharp despite the obvious over-sharpening halos (there are plenty of FPs of subjects at around 30mm with far greater IQ, and damselflies are one of the easiest things to photograph since they're so flat. they fit into the focus plane perfectly). The problem with setting a hard line in the sand is that people get too focused on it and double-standards emerge. Just because my images are 600px smaller doesn't mean they have any less EV or detail. Thank's for your sincere and heartfelt welcome to fpc Pine ;p Benjamint 07:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood your previous comments. I must say however, that EV is not the sole purpose of featured pictures. While all pictures contribute some amount of EV, that does not mean that all pictures need not go by the technical criteria and get promoted to FP. While your picture contributes excellent EV, it does not meet the technical criteria. Believe me, if it had 600px more, I would support without a problem, but it does not meet the criteria, therefore, I don't feel it should be promoted to FP status. Do you have a higher resolution picture available? Dusty777 17:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having read your comments about File:Prodasineura verticalis, Burdwan, West Bengal, India 13 09 2012.jpg, you've persuaded me to change my mind on that one. --Pine^✉ 16:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Benjamin. If this was upsampled to the min requirements, it may pass and that is a flaw in our criteria? --Muhammad(talk) 07:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if Benjamin doesn't have, or doesn't want to provide a higher resolution image, we can see what people think of it upsampled to the minimum requirements... But part of the reason for the more stringent requirements (well, perhaps more correctly, a by-product of) is the pressure to provide a higher resolution image. If we happily accepted low resolution images, some people would provide only the minimum. Clearly this image has been downsampled prior to uploading (it's too sharp to be straight out of camera), so the resolution provided was a decision he made, rather than being due to a crop. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd just like to correct Dusty's comment that "The only times that [the min size] part of the criteria is overlooked is in historical pictures (with few exceptions otherwise.)" The criteria actually say "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration". The "technically difficult" and "higher resolution could realistically be acquired" clauses were specifically added in order to compensate for some subjects/situations making it difficult to achieve (with comparison to, say studio or landscape photography). The classic example was a distant bird cropped from an image taken through an extreme telephoto lens. There's no exif info to let us know whether the lens was appropriate to this kind of shot, but the article's page is illustrated with close ups taken with compact cameras that show more detail than this, so I reckon this isn't a difficult bird to shoot. If Diliff is right that this has been downsampled, then there's really no valid excuse for the small size. Colin°^Talk 12:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've kind of missed the point Colin, might be worth having a re-read if you're interested in the discussion as I intend to highlight this potential flaw in the criteria in more detail on the talk page in a day or two. I will propose that in some cases distinction should be made between "spatial resolution" and "actual resolution" when assessing whether an image passes criteria 2. This is relevant to both small images with high IQ, and some unusually large images with low IQ. Benjamint 14:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I don't think I have. Your image has less detail than several images of such gulls on Commons (and two in the article), all of which were taken with pocket compact cameras. The set of photographs of the gull with chick on Commons (one of which is in the article) have more charm and EV than this, and more detail. Based on this, the "mitigating circumstances" you speak of don't seem to apply. This is a low-detail picture of a bird, which appears to be relatively easy to capture close-up with cheap equipment. Colin°^Talk 15:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't even bother responding to your comment on the other images because I assumed you were joking. The close-up of the head is downsampled and is also below the fpc requirements. Flash photography of animals is also illegal in the islands. The image of the gull and it's chick being harassed (beak open in a gesture of "please go away now". and taken with a focal length of 28mm i'm not surprised she wants him to back off!) is also quite small as well as being soft, overexposed and doesn't even have more meaningful detail imo. For identification purposes mine has every bit the same detail without the blown breast, chopped off feet and weird crop. But hey, some would call that charm, whatever floats your boat Colin. Benjamint 23:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - A couple of other images that weren't in the article had variously 700px and 900px horizontal resolution and both of appalling quality. Not even sure what the "several images" are that you speak of. Benjamint 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not saying the other pictures are FA quality: they merely illustrate that, on the evidence I can see, there are no mitigating circumstances for the small pic. I don't know why you mention flash -- the other pics I looked at had their flash turned off. Benjamint, your picture is a good picture for the lead and valuable for that. This is FP so we don't just award a gold star to any old bird photo that's got the exposure and focus right. It is fine. Not outstanding. And its small size is one aspect of its lack of outstandingness :-) Colin°^Talk 07:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamint, do you happen to have a higher resolution picture available? If you do, by all means upload it, it will get an automatic support from me. Dusty777 01:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not available, it was taken with a 400mm for the person who asked though. I'm not overly concerned about this one nomination, but I see FPC as not simply a selection process, but as a process of group education where we school the wider community on how best to achieve yet more FPs. Comments about angle, position and composition from an EV POV is really valuable to myself and other photographers. As long as I get "speedy close" responses (which are great for saving voters time, and I wholeheartedly agree with) I'm not learning and improving. We have to look past the numbers sometimes and see the image. I would like to contribute to this page more, not just with nominations, but by pointing out double standards and highlighting areas for possible improvement in the process and criteria as well. I hope such input will be welcomed. Benjamint 01:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can compromise on the resolution here because it is enough to describe the subject in an article or to show more details on a separate page. I will oppose if nominated at COM:FPC due to the unsuitability of other uses. But could you explain why I prefer this over File:Creagrus furcatus -Galapagos Islands-8.jpg? Jkadavoor (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the one you linked actually has a really nice thumbnail but at full res it's a plague of digital noise (and halos, they tried and failed to sharpen the tail feathers?) and despite it's superior "actual resolution" it's "spatial resolution" is very small. The moral of these nominations I'm making is that extra pixels don't always mean extra detail. Sometimes high IQ is the mitigation of low res in my opinion. Benjamint 23:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may right; I'm not good to assess such technical matters. Hope someone else (prefer an article editor) will compare them and make an opinion. Jkadavoor (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as illustrating a Wikipedia article's lead, both the nomination and the one Jkadavoor links to are essentially identical. They have identical poses and situations and both have sufficient detail to help with identification and appreciate all the features of the bird. I agree the nomination shows very slightly more feather detail and the other has noise and sharpening issues. I just don't see that it follows that "bird mostly fills frame, subject in focus, reasonable exposure => FP". This is supposed to be our best work. The pixel size of the image is indeed a surrogate measure of the resolution (i.e., detail resolved and retained) of an image but it is a simple measure and is intended to prevent endless per-article discussions or folk downsizing to a poor threshold. Colin°^Talk 08:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]