Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pterodroma mollis light morph - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg
In today's world, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pterodroma mollis light morph - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg has become a topic of great relevance and interest to a wide spectrum of individuals and sectors. From its impact on society to its significance in the economic sphere, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pterodroma mollis light morph - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg has captured the attention of experts and the general public. In this article, we will explore the different aspects that make Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pterodroma mollis light morph - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg such a relevant topic today, analyzing its importance, its implications and the possible solutions or perspectives to address it. With a multidisciplinary approach, we will address how Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pterodroma mollis light morph - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg is transforming the way we understand the world around us, as well as the possible implications for the future.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2019 at 03:30:57 (UTC)
Original – The soft-plumaged petrel (Pterodroma mollis) is a species of seabird in the family Procellariidae.
Reason
High quality image of small bird in flight at sea from a boat in swell. Photographing pterodromas is never easy - I got one crack at this as it passed the boat.
Nonsense. It's just not taken with a crop body and a large aperture. The depth of field is about half of what it is with a 7D, 400 at 5.6 if you do the math. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I apologise as I do not have experience with your camera set up. But grateful if you send me the out-of-camera image before any processing then I scan stop imagining things! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Support - I don't see the blurred background to be a significant problem. Much of it was likely out of the depth of field at f/4 anyway. MER-C14:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not a matter of EV. It's clearly a matter of opinion how much one post-processes an image. With this amount of processing we are not judging a genuine wildlife photo. I'm not happy with that for encyclopaedic value. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess what I should have said is that the EV here is for the bird, not the water. The bird is in focus, so that's why I said it has high EV. Mattximus (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
You're making it very clear you have no experience with full frame cameras and big prime lenses. Much less noise and more subject isolation from the background is normal. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Support. Fine capture. DoF looks normal for this sort of photo. I can see what looks like a little bit of pan-motion blur on the crest of the wave but I don't think it's problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
