Original - A kea is a species of parrot native to New Zealand. This image shows one mid-flight, its iridescent wings gleaming a myriad of colours above "The Remarkables", a mountain range near Queenstown, New Zealand
Reason
Taken at the perfect moment, this shows off the iridescent wings to perfection.
Weak oppose. Although this is a great photo of what looks to be a beautiful bird, I am a little concerned that its head can't be seen. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Although we have many pictures of birds sitting still, head-on, with razor sharp details on their feathers, that's not what this image is. Instead, the subject is the plumage of the bird's back, and is only visible while in flight. This leads to enough motion blur to make those chiseled edges impossible, and also shows us only the back of the head. That said, the rear plumage view outweighs that--though not by much.--HereToHelp(talk to me) 21:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Oppose This is a very good shot. Because the head can't be seen, I have some reservations but on the other hand the coverage of the bird's plummage is excellent. The background is a tad too bright and not diffused enough. It's a good shot but without the head in view and the very strong background (the latter can be remedied), can't support at this time. Capital photographer (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure how this affects diffusion, but the light in alpine New Zealand is typically very harsh and bright during most of the day. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lighting would affect the brightness and intensity of the background, but diffusion refers to how blurred the background is. The more blurred, the better as viewer will enjoy less distraction and be more focused on the subject. Lack of diffusion leads to messy and busy comps. In bird photography especially, diffusion is very often used [1]. Capital photographer (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The perspective of the shot is quite unique, but as aforementioned, I don't like the fact that the bird is not shown in its entirety. -- mcshadyplTC 05:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good illustration of its posture during soaring flight and its camouflage. On both pages there is no need to show the head (Kea has a pic of the head, and Flight is about using wings), and it is normal for birds to look at the ground for finding food, so a pic with the head up is probably worse for the article. Narayanese (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although can relate to the concerns that in our non-relativistic environment, object's can only be seen from one side at a time... Dorftrottel (talk) 19:12, April 30, 2008
comment* Just to check, we all are aware that SOME of the head can be seen if you look above thumbnail view, right? It's a little more off to the left than you might expect thanks to angles and position, but quite obvious. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support — This is an excellent shot. The errors in the image are miniscule compared to the challenges the photographer had to overcome. It is dynamic and captures the subject accurately. Therefore, I must support it.Sumanch (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You might want to actually put this in bird flight. Has this been tried? They have two ducks, one goose, and one swan. You'd think one of those might be replaced by a parrot for good measure. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - much as HearToHelp. If the head had gone because of a bad cut-off, that would be unacceptable, but given the point of view etc there is probably a trade-off between the head and the beautiful wings. There are enough heads in the article to make up for it and the image adds much value to the article. What I have a bit of a problem with is the composition and I am not sure why. The bird is well placed in the frame and the wings pick up nicely with the grass. I think it must be the direction of the grey rock underneath that is causing an imbalance, which is a pity because you can't do much about it. Any thoughts? Motmit (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Amazing picture with excellent detail. Spinach Dip 01:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Good pic, great detail, but the bird's head is not totally visible. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢDrop me a line§ 04:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Object in photo is initially unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrittk (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's a great shot that I'm sure was hard to get, but in addition to the headless angle, it is a bit out of focus and the subject is not distinct enough from the background (especially at thumbnail size).--ragesoss (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture. Well done. —αἰτίας•discussion• 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just recently had a look at some photos a friend of mine took while he was in NZ and the Kea is exceptionally tame and easy to photograph - a better shot both in terms of sharpness and composition is not too much to ask for. --Fir0002 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus. --jjron (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
