Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bruno Doucey par Claude Truong-Ngoc décembre 2014.jpg

File:Bruno Doucey par Claude Truong-Ngoc décembre 2014.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 13:38:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Claude Truong-Ngoc, nominated by Yann (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Professional quality portrait of a French writer and poet. -- Yann (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, nice expresion, high EV and the black and scale up white are colors too to realse the contrast and expresion --The Photographer (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is he a saint ? I see a halo behind his head, and I'm not a fan of that. BtW, I "don't dislike" the B&W choice here...--Jebulon (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Je pense que c'est volontaire pour mettre en valeur le portrait par rapport au fond. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jebulon: Votre commentaire est très drôle, je suis d'accord avec vous, le Vignettage devrait être retirée. --The Photographer (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a nice B&W image but ... the halo arround the head is distracting and the false focus point: it's to the beard and not to the eyes = "a malpractice"? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is done on purpose, to highlight the portrait from the background. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Purpose or not, it looks simply bad for my opinion, as a nimbus and Bruno Doucey isn't sacred. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have to agree with Alchemist-hp/Jebulon that the halo is odd. Otherwise it's a fine portrait I'd be happy to support. -- Colin (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Claude confirmed that this is done on purpose. See his talk page for the details (in French). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't full understand the talk page conversation but I see now it is a strong vignette all round the face. If the vignette overlapped the top of the hair, then perhaps it wouldn't look so much like a halo. I appreciate the desire to bring focus on the face, but this doesn't seem to be subtly done. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a very good technique in fine-arts. But if Commons only wants boring 100% faithful reproductions, it will be bad technique. :) J e e 02:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Jee. That proves, if needed be, that opposing votes here are completely out of line with what professional photographers do. Very disappointing... Yann (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I can only say: images from "professional photographers" ≠ always featured pictures! If you can't accept an opinion from another, so close your eyes please ... ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Family portrait photography (per the link) isn't really "fine arts". Nor (to put my Wikipedia hat on) is 500px a reliable source for serious photographic technique. Regardless, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with using a vignette just as there is nothing wrong with using a graduated filter for landscape photography. But both techniques can be overdone or misaligned. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Purpose or not, etc... Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support That halo is hardly visible in the original, full resolution version. I suspect that the halo effect in the thumbnails/smaller sizes is due to oversharpening from the recently introduced "bucketed" thumbnailing. See phab:T76983. --El Grafo (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes; no halo in full size. And glad to see his teeth are out of focus. I had vomited several times after seeing an fpc at EN last year. :) J e e 11:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the halo on the full-size image if I step back, or if I reduce it in software. So this is not a mediawiki thumbnail issue. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it also at my 4K monitor. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as well, and yes it gets more pronounced if you step back or zoom out. I've downloaded the small thumbnail on the right as well as the original, loaded both in Gimp and zoomed out the original to match the thumbnail's size. There's quite a difference in sharpening which also affects the halo to some degree. Personally I think that the amount of halo visible in the original size is OK. I can understand other people disagreeing on that, but however you decide, please don't make your decision solely based on Mediawiki's current thumbnail settings. --El Grafo (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only talking about the light halo around the head btw, not about the dark vignetting effect that makes the scarf blend into the shirt at the bottom etc. That's an appropriate thing to so in order to focus on the face, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All quality photo websites, including MediaWiki apply a small degree of sharpening when they downsize an image, to offset the softening effect of the algorithms and to restore pixel-level contrast which can be averaged away. If you simply downsize without sharpening, an image can look soft. See this. -- Colin (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but very recently the way this is being done on Commons has changed. Previously, each thumbnail size was created from the original with an appropriate, small amount of sharpening. Now they use a "bucket chain", where only the largest thumbnail is created from the original. From that, the next smaller size is created, and from that the next smaller size and so on. Sharpening is done in every step so that the smaller sizes receive several rounds of sharpening. See this example ("old" mediawiki default on the left, new "bucketed" approach on the right). See also phab:T76983 or Commons:Forum#Neue_Version_der_Vorschau? (in german), where people complain about that.

All I'm saying is: Don't trust our thumbnails at the moment, there have been some drastic changes lately. --El Grafo (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ram-Man 18:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People