Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Purple martin in flight (30977).jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2024 at 23:36:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Purple martin in flight
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Hirundinidae_(Swallows)
  •  Info Purple martin in flight, slowing down as it approaches its nest. Spent a long time try to get a sharp photo of these very fast birds -- I was happy with this one.
    Note: I tried something with the sky that I haven't attempted before, pulling a cloud from another shot taken at the same place at the same time from roughly the same direction. I don't know if that's too much retouching for FPC, but erring on the side of disclosure (it didn't affect the bird itself -- just improved the background a little). all by — Rhododendrites talk |  23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support — Rhododendrites talk |  23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good job TOUMOU (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I feel quite strongly that replacing sky is not acceptable for FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support After spending a couple of hours (unsuccessfully) trying to get a decent shot of flying swallows, I understand your plights, great work! I have no issue with the replaced sky, since it is clearly mentioned. --Julesvernex2 (talk)
  •  Support as per Julesvernex2. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is mentioned but that doesn't make it acceptable. We can't go around replacing backgrounds. Where would that stop? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why can't we? Restricting FP to the rules of photojournalism and photo contests would leave out a bunch of interesting candidates. Julesvernex2 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have never manipulated a background (or a foreground)? All of the out-of-focus twigs, distracting leaves, bird/bug-specks in the background, etc. that you've photographed -- you've never removed them? Pay no mind to extraordinary feats of AI-enabled sharpening, AI-based denoising, selective tone adjustments, and all other manner of post-processing, but add a cloud (a cloud in the sky at that place and at that time, even) and all of a sudden I've crossed a bright line? I'm not saying it shouldn't matter -- I know it'll go against some people's sensibilities, which is why I highlighted it in the nomination statement, and anyone is free to oppose if they wish -- but this Arbiter of What's Acceptable stuff is too much. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, any panorama which includes sky and clouds will have several spots in the sky where parts are from other neighboring photos, so in fact replaced and often tweaked/reshaped by the processing program to look nice. I can guarantee that the sky never looked exactly like in this image, because it is a product of the program that stitched the panorama. We accept that without question because they are declared as panoramas and we know they are "manipulated". As long as the alteration is openly declared in a very clear manner (which has been made here), I see no problem with entering such photos here at FPC. It's just a matter of classification, and in each case votes can decide how much they are willing to tolerate in an FPC. Ideally it would be great if the original was found in the file's upload history so that we can see each step, I think that would help people decide how they are going to vote. In this case, I suspect there is no great difference. --Cart (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • For good measure, I've uploaded the version before the sky adjustment and reverted. Note that the uploaded file is also before another pass at tone adjustments/white balancing so it looks slightly different in other [more mundane] ways. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        It is indeed a small but surprisingly effective change! A small nitpick: those beautiful steel blue feathers above the eyes got quite a bit duller after the tonal adjustments. Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- WildMouse76 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with Charles that heavy-handed manipulations (like sky replacements) applied to images which will be used in a context where the audience can expect a realistic depiction of the subject shouldn't be featured here. As image manipulations seem to come up more often these days, there might be a need for a more in-depth discussion about what's ok and what's not. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion has been opened on the FPC talk page. --Cart (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "heavy-handed manipulation" didn't change the subject at all, so if the point is to ensure a photo of a martin looks like a martin that's irrelevant here. If it's to ensure a martin could be seen in front of a realistic background, the fact that it's the same sky from the same place/time would seem pretty realistic. So what's left is an arbitrary line whereby using AI to manipulate an image's noise/sharpness, stitching images, using content-aware fill, outright removing pieces like disturbing plants and smears, etc. is acceptable and this is not. I would feel less strongly about this if people just said "it offends my photographer's sensibilities in ways that a wide range of other manipulations and 'unrealities' do not" rather than act as though this is unrealistic but the rest of what we see at FPC is completely realistic. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Hirundinidae (Swallows)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Purple_martin_in_flight_(30977).jpg&oldid=879757988"