Reason

High quality illustration of the species. Probably the only good shot I managed to get of a wild bird with my 200mm + 1.4TC before I bought my 400mm.

Articles this image appears in

Yellow-faced Honeyeater, Honeyeater

Creator

Fir0002

• Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support original. Seems to tick all the boxes. The only negatives are the small branches obscuring the feet and partly crossing the tail, and the shallow DOF, but focus is spot on. BTW are the dates right - you say you in the nom you took these before you bought your 400mm, but the dates on the image pages say it was taken Nov 08, and you've nominated a number of other images during this year taken with the 400mm? --jjron (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite right - got confused with the current month! --Fir0002 09:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support original Essentially per jjron and I agree that the only negatives on this are the brances with the tail, other than that I think it's a spectacular shot. Cat-five - talk 01:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support original I know first hand how difficult wild birding with 280mm generally is. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• SupportAn excellent image of a difficult subject, with encyclopedic value too. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 12:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support original per above. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support either. Visually, I actually prefer the alternative (reminds me of Charley Harper's work :), but I guess the original has more encyclopedic value since the subject is clearer. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support both well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Yellow-faced Honeyeater nov07.jpg MER-C 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)