Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Whistling kite in flight.jpg
In this article we are going to explore Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Whistling kite in flight.jpg from a completely new perspective, analyzing its most relevant aspects and its implications in different contexts. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Whistling kite in flight.jpg has been the subject of interest and debate in various disciplines and its importance is undeniable in today's world. From its impact on society to its influence on popular culture, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Whistling kite in flight.jpg is a topic that deserves close examination to understand its true meaning and scope. Throughout these pages, we will unravel the mysteries surrounding Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Whistling kite in flight.jpg and try to shed light on its many facets, allowing the reader to embark on a fascinating journey of discovery and introspection.
Original - Whistling Kite in flightEdit 1 by Diliff - Dodged (brightened) the bird's shadow detail and burned (darkened) the background to allow the bird to stand out.
Comment. Very good capture, but also very indistinct from the background and it is slightly underexposed IMO. Could definitely do with some dodging of the bird's wings to bring it out from the background. I had very rough attempt at it and it brought out the detail very well. Putting a bit of effort into it from the original (RAW, hopefully) would yield much better results than mine. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I did a slight overall brightening on the bird and boosted the saturation slightly to bring it out a bit more; but I'd already done a fair bit of dodging/brightening from the original and personally don't feel it should have any more as it starts looking a bit unnatural. --Fir000213:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Well I put this edit out there anyway, as I don't personally think the bird looks significantly more unrealistic as a result of the edit, but it does stand out a bit more now. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Support edit 1 I was torn between the better detail in the edit and the closer to real-lifeness of the original, but showing more detail is probably more important.Terri G (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose both: Much too dark. I don't like the haloing of the edit and don't think it's much of an improvement, sorry, :( If the image were provided higher resolution, this may offset the flaws, but at only 1067x1600, no way. Maedin\talk12:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
