41:
369:. The sparrow is quite sharp and detailed but I actually prefer the female sparrow taken by Fir0002 from the article. The composition is better and it stands out more against the background than this one, which is one of the main reasons for my opposition to this image, so in that sense I agree with Tewy and Moondigger.
276:
I have no objection to an urban setting. Rather, I find the background distracting because I can't figure out what that is back there. It looks vaguely like a television, and that's incongruous because televisions wouldn't normally be found outdoors next to a ledge. I realize it's most likely not
237:
back there - a television? Whatever it is, it draws attention away from the subject and seems incongruous. Also, the banding in the out of focus area is distracting. I agree this image is better than what can be found of this subject on
Knowledge (XXG) and Commons, but it still doesn't seem like
267:- the background is unnatural, but the sparrow is largely an urban bird. Just as it would be strange to see a pidgeon or cockroach in front of a field of flowers, so too would it be strange to see a sparrow there. Background, with its industrial look, adds to the encyclopedic value, imho.
48:
For a relatively common bird it is surprising that there are nearly no good photos of it on commons or elsewhere. That said, despite being pretty tame, they are still tricky subjects to photograph. I particularly like the posture of the bird in this image.
220:
All right, the House
Sparrow is a rather ordinary looking bird. But this is a very high quality photo of said un-interesting bird. Hence it is encyclopedic for the article. I have also seen better pictures (of other subjects). I have no fantasy.
337:
sparrow a non natural looking background seems appropriate to me. After all it is blurred enough to make the sharp and detailed bird stand out. The only minor flaw I see is that the shape of the beak is a little obscured in this full frontal view.
298:
Aah. I can definitely see them as headlights. I had originally seen it as a TV on something like a patio table, maybe with a brick wall surrounding the table. Maybe we should nominate the background for an article on
134:
My opinion is that on a "record" shot of an animal (which how I see this pic) it should fill the frame. Of course if this pic is regarded as something more artistic than a record shot, then you are correct -
394:
is superior, both for the less-distracting background and for the fact that the profile gives us a better idea of the details of the bird's head and beak. I suggest it be nominated separately. --
466:
Very appealing composition, very good resolution, very illustrative of a
Sparrow! I feel that everyone who is in opposition to this photo commented solely based on personal aesthetic values.
250:. It's a technically great shot, but the composition, namely the background, ruins it for me. It's tricky to get a neutral background in an urban setting, but it could be better. --
34:
501:, but only because you have made a better alternative. The other female photo is heaps better, and it still shows the urban environment. Good work with these, they are great. --
350:- A great photo, but I'd prefer a closer crop to eliminate some of that distracting background area and also to focus your eyes on the bird better when at thumbnail size. -
125:
Disagree, it is a completely by the book composition (rule of thirds). The attention grabbing face of the bird is dead on on an intersection point. And it looks balanced. --
554:
85:
17:
321:
Personally I couldn't care less about the background, when the bird is so sharp it almost looks 3D, how can your eye fail to be drawn to it.
116:
Although I would like to have seen the picture clipped a little more (for me, there's a litle too much dead space on the right) -
540:
516:
505:
493:
479:
470:
458:
442:
423:
398:
382:
361:
342:
325:
307:
293:
281:
271:
258:
242:
225:
212:
196:
179:
167:
139:
129:
120:
108:
91:
60:
23:
378:
189:
450:
I remember seeing this picture on Fir's user page not too long ago; I was impressed with the quality. As to whether
535:
188:
Ok, where? Because from what I've seen on commons, and the previous image that headed the House
Sparrow article (
454:
image is better, possibly if we had a vote. It would be close, but I like this one better. Good work Fir0002. |
451:
391:
75:
300:
159:
80:
208:
dito, the background is disturbing. All the time I'm asking myself what it is ;). I have no fantasy :/.
104:
513:
409:
351:
164:
233:. A fine looking bird, but the background is quite distracting. I can't help wondering what that
176:
71:
431:
background is a tad dodgy. But the picture still looks very good and is perfect for articles.
502:
476:
467:
375:
222:
152:
136:
117:
100:
433:
395:
278:
239:
156:
548:
531:
490:
455:
304:
303:. I would definitely support the second sparrow image that has been mentioned below.
268:
339:
322:
290:
209:
193:
126:
57:
370:
40:
420:
252:
526:
68:. Amazing quality and encyclopedic value. It's featured in my book.
475:
Of course we are, which is exactly how you too are judging it! -
408:. Good resolution and excellent quality, however, just like what
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/House
Sparrow
277:
a television, but nonetheless it is distracting. --
289:FWIW, that's actually the headlights of a car --
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
39:
192:) the alternatives are pretty poor. --
7:
99:Definitely does the job in my book.
523:Promoted Image:Sparrow on ledge.jpg
555:Ended featured picture nominations
31:
419:said, I prefer a closer crop.
1:
541:12:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
517:22:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
506:05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
494:20:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
480:08:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
471:14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
459:10:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
443:08:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
424:07:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
399:17:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
383:15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
362:15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
343:14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
326:18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
308:10:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
294:22:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
282:13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
272:08:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
259:01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
243:00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
226:22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
213:21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
197:22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
190:Image:SparrowsMaleFemale.jpg
180:20:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
168:19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
140:11:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
130:14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
121:15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
109:10:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
92:10:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
61:08:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
571:
175:- I have seen better. --
301:Rorschach inkblot tests
155:, It could use a crop.
238:FP material to me. --
45:
43:
44:Female House Sparrow
46:
539:
487:Support but crop.
390:I agree that the
381:
333:well, if it is a
22:(Redirected from
562:
529:
477:Adrian Pingstone
439:
436:
417:
412:
373:
359:
354:
255:
248:Very weak oppose
162:
153:Adrian Pingstone
151:. I agree with
137:Adrian Pingstone
118:Adrian Pingstone
88:
83:
78:
27:
570:
569:
565:
564:
563:
561:
560:
559:
545:
544:
437:
434:
413:
410:
355:
352:
253:
160:
107:
86:
81:
76:
38:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
568:
566:
558:
557:
547:
546:
520:
519:
508:
496:
484:
483:
482:
464:Strong Support
461:
445:
426:
403:
402:
401:
364:
345:
328:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
261:
245:
228:
215:
202:
201:
200:
199:
183:
182:
170:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
111:
103:
94:
63:
37:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
567:
556:
553:
552:
550:
543:
542:
537:
533:
528:
524:
518:
515:
512:
509:
507:
504:
500:
497:
495:
492:
488:
485:
481:
478:
474:
473:
472:
469:
465:
462:
460:
457:
453:
449:
446:
444:
441:
440:
430:
427:
425:
422:
418:
416:
407:
404:
400:
397:
393:
389:
386:
385:
384:
380:
377:
372:
368:
365:
363:
360:
358:
349:
346:
344:
341:
336:
332:
329:
327:
324:
320:
317:
309:
306:
302:
297:
296:
295:
292:
288:
285:
284:
283:
280:
275:
274:
273:
270:
266:
262:
260:
257:
256:
249:
246:
244:
241:
236:
232:
229:
227:
224:
219:
216:
214:
211:
207:
204:
203:
198:
195:
191:
187:
186:
185:
184:
181:
178:
177:Ineffable3000
174:
171:
169:
166:
163:
158:
154:
150:
147:
141:
138:
133:
132:
131:
128:
124:
123:
122:
119:
115:
112:
110:
106:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
89:
84:
79:
74:
73:
67:
64:
62:
59:
55:
52:
51:
50:
42:
36:
35:House Sparrow
33:
25:
19:
522:
521:
510:
498:
486:
463:
447:
432:
428:
414:
406:Weak Support
405:
387:
366:
356:
348:Weak support
347:
334:
330:
318:
286:
264:
251:
247:
234:
230:
217:
205:
172:
148:
113:
96:
70:
69:
65:
56:Self Nom. --
53:
47:
514:Towsonu2003
503:liquidGhoul
468:Jellocube27
392:other image
223:Bridgecross
173:Weak Oppose
101:Staxringold
396:Moondigger
379:(Contribs)
279:Moondigger
240:Moondigger
411:Countdown
353:Countdown
549:Category
536:contribs
491:Masamage
456:AndonicO
305:Debivort
269:Debivort
511:Support
448:Support
429:Support
388:Comment
340:Dschwen
331:Support
323:Terri G
319:Support
291:Fir0002
287:Comment
265:Support
263:Strong
218:Support
210:Darkone
194:Fir0002
149:Neutral
127:Dschwen
114:Support
97:Support
72:Nautica
66:Support
58:Fir0002
54:Support
499:Oppose
415:Crispy
376:(Talk)
371:Diliff
367:Oppose
357:Crispy
231:Oppose
206:Oppose
438:eagle
435:Noble
421:Acs4b
335:house
16:<
532:talk
452:this
254:Tewy
165:lama
157:Witt
105:talk
77:Shad
527:KFP
551::
534:|
525:--
489:--
374:|
338:--
235:is
221:--
538:)
530:(
161:y
87:s
82:e
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
