Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Butorides striata striata in Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 08.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Butorides striata striata in Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 08.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2023 at 16:06:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
✓ Done You are right, please, let me know if its ok now, thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I'm afraid not. I am guessing you cloned out something and it will be tricky to hide that. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't much, just a small unimportant object behind that distracted from the composition. If you want I can upload the photo without any treatment --Wilfredor (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Up to you, I'd have to oppose this one; others may be happy... Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Charles. You can review the untouched original here. I want to clarify that my intention isn't to alter the overall setting or divert attention from the main subject. I'm simply aiming to remove temporary elements that could be distracting. That tube, in particular, is part of a temporarily placed item. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The tube is the thing that looks like a pole? It doesn't look temporary. Your edits are too much for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ikan Kekek Is it something that is placed (without screws) to protect the place from rain? Another possibility is that it is something that was not screwed and simply left placed on top of the dock. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Thanks for the untouched original. Super honesty. You have done a major cloning which, for me, is too great. The composition was too weak to start with. There are no rules for what can and cannot be removed, but for me (ignoring the poor cloning) this is too much and would need disclosure. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Improved the gallery link. – For me the editing is OK, as it does not misrepresent the bird or spread any fake news; it’s a big retouching, yes, but still just the removal of an irritating secondary element. However @Wilfredor: I would suggest to add the {{Retouched picture}} template to the description page of the retouched version in order to avoid any misunderstandings etc. --Aristeas (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added it, thanks. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Wilfredor! Now I personlly see no “legal” or moral objections anymore. (But I completely understand that other users see this differently! This is why we are discussing such things.) Regarding the image itself: Comparing it with the original shows that there is some room for improvement – the feathers on the border are just cut off now, this could be handled in a more refined way. I know it is difficult and much work to do this better, but IHMO this is a beautiful photo and deserves some extra work for more careful masking. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Charlesjsharp, Ikan Kekek, and Aristeas: Apologies for reaching out again, but I've just completed a restoration of the edge. It took me several hours of meticulous work. I truly hope it meets your expectations, as I've given it my best effort --Wilfredor (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a really nice photo, but the edits are drastic, such that it's almost a completely different photo than what you started with. Are the colors and brightness entirely made up by you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me clarify something about the photograph that I think is essential for viewers to understand. The colors captured in this shot are true to life; they remain untouched and are a genuine representation of that moment. Now, it's worth noting that while I did adjust the exposure to a lower setting, it was purely to achieve a faster shutter speed, ensuring clarity and precision, especially given the quick movements of the bird. The lighting, however, is authentic – it's exactly how the scene was illuminated naturally at the time. Photography, in my opinion, is an art of representation. It's about capturing reality, and while there's always a balance between artistic expression and authenticity, my primary aim is always to remain faithful to the moment. In this case, the bird is undeniably the focal point. With that in mind, removing a minor, temporary distraction in the background hardly constitutes heavy-handed editing. It's a subtle touch to ensure the viewer's attention remains where it truly belongs – on the majestic bird of the image. From the onset of my journey in photography, I've held onto a principle of transparency. Whenever I've made alterations, however minor, I've always been upfront and honest about them. Authenticity in capturing moments is paramount to me, but so is my integrity as a photographer. The essence of this photograph, like all my works, is truth. While I adjusted the exposure for technical reasons, and removed a brief distraction from the background, I've always remained sincere about these decisions. I believe that this candor not only respects my audience but also preserves the sanctity of the art form. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, and I respect that. I'll think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support So I've aired my doubts about the edits, but I think other photographers might have just presented the finished product, and the finished product is an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support and thank you for the explanations. Overall it’s a very beautiful image now. --Aristeas (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Great edit! ★ 12:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support The editing is ok; I like the color contrast. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support - Princess 🍵 Rosalina 24979 07:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I have to agree with Charles that the editing was too much. You have done a good job on the bird, but the cloning of the area around the base of pole is too obvious for me, with the duplicated semi-circle and repeated bit of stonework behind it. BigDom (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Partially per BigDom: I don't really have a problem with the removal, but what's left doesn't look convincing – those two large circular shapes just don't make sense. --El Grafo (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shadows are a normal part when taking a distant photo as part of the same lens, it is called vignething and is perfectly acceptable in some cases like this to give emphasis to the subject --Wilfredor (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I don't usually vote for my own photo, but in this case I think it is necessary, I feel that I did a good editing job that deserves to be recognized. I do not agree with the errors previously commented --Wilfredor (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus : Butorides
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Butorides_striata_striata_in_Petrópolis,_Rio_de_Janeiro,_Brazil_08.jpg&oldid=810783771"