Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blue-tailed bee-eater

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2021 at 14:31:14 (UTC)

Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Details aren't sharp on chest and neck (quality of the original upload is poor). We have a better/sharper FP of this bird on Commons here. Bammesk (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the original out-of-camera-jpg upload Bammesk is totally irrelevant. This is the second time you've said this. Perhpas you do not understand post-processing. Post-processing technology has improved since 2017 and sophisticated software was used on the other image. In 2017 I did not process from RAW. You may be aware that inn photo competitions, photographers must be prepared to provide the out-of-camera-RAW file to check for untoward digital manipulation. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that out-of-camera-jpg quality is irrelevant, because cameras don't put out poor quality jpegs when the RAW capture quality is good. But regardless of its relevance (or lack of), it's parenthetical; my oppose rationale precedes the parenthesis. The 'sophisticated' post-process difference (now versus 2017) is the 'Topaz AI' software (primarily to sharpen and denoise [1]). The enhancements fall short in my opinion in this case. Others can disagree. Bammesk (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Canon, the quality of out-of camera jpgs depends on the jpg quality level chosen before you shoot an image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Don't think we should be looking at an older JPG when this has been processed from raw but the other image linked by Bammesk is indeed much better and should precede this one--Muhammad(talk) 09:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]