Original - A Brown Falcon (Falco berigora) perched on a tree limb, taken in Victoria, Australia.
Reason
Can't let FPC be without a bird nom for too long :-). Compositionally this is arguably the best bird image I've taken, and compares favourably to other FPs. Good EV - it serves as the lead image in three articles. I'll let others decide what they think...
Support as nominatorjjron (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose JPEG artifacts (e.g. along the edge of the tail) and slightly blurry. Time3000 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not at all sharp, small. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Vanderdecken and no feather detail at all. Mfield (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. It does illustrate the subject well, but is (unfortunatelly) blurry. Spinach Dip 19:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blur. 8thstar 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much of the bottom half of the bird is blurry. crassic![talk] 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some people may need to check what 'blurry' means. It's not especially sharp - a 1:1 crop taken from a photo at full zoom where the lens unfortunately lacks sharpness - but it's not blurred. --jjron (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree, its just a lack of sharpness, not blur. However, it is a bit too unsharp for me, and looks like there may have been some strong noise reduction as there isn't much in the way of texture visible on the bird or the perch. Excellent shot compositionally though. I think you just might need to borrow Fir0002's 400mm lens for this one. Or better yet, find a 600mm lens. ;-) Wildlife photography is a tough and expensive field though, I sympathise.. My longest lens is a 200mm f/2.8L and I find it heavy enough as it is. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It serves as the lead image in three articles because it was the creator/nominator who put it there, displacing a different existing image each time. It could be argued that it is a better image individually but it has an adverse net effect on Wikipedia, making three closely related articles look very similar. There is much to be said for variety, even if it relies on not such good pictures. The image has a good composition and does have a place in all articles, but taking the lead three times is overkill. Motmit (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff and Motmit. Matt Deres (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
