Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Patricia De León.jpg

File:Patricia De León.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2014 at 08:25:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kike San Martin - uploaded by Misty2011 - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kitsch. Kleuske (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Patricia de Leon is also an animal rights activist and has spoken out against bullfighting for PETA, so this image has extra meaning that might not be evident by looking at it. It was apparently the image used in the campaign. russavia (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew that. I should have said 'self serving, promotional kitsch and (probably) a fake to boot'. Kleuske (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photography itself is outstanding, and it's great that this image was donated under a free license. But the entire background just looks wrong. Look at the way the shadows fall on the ground behind the model. They imply a much steeper slope than does the distance to the grandstands. Powers (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm pretty sure that's a studio shot in front of a backdrop. Not sure how I feel about that yet … --El Grafo (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support An engaging and technically excellent shot, studio or otherwise. I would welcome the personality right template being added though. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ This is very different from what we are used to see here style-wise. Strange, but excellent. --El Grafo (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC) I kinda like the fact that we can only see two of her toes – works well with the hooves ;-)[reply]
- Changed to Oppose per comments below. "Photoshopped" isn't necessarily a bad thing, but even I can see that the artificial dirt on the roses just looks wrong. --El Grafo (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Saffron and El Grafo.--Cayambe (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm pretty sure that the woman, bull, roses and backdrop are separate images photoshopped together (look at her foot, the impossible position (!) of her foot, the resolution of her foot compared to the hooves, and the weird semi-transparent roses; the light on the woman comes from all sides, on the bull it doesn't)... I think it's even far from being well done. That only leaves us with an interesting idea poorly executed. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kabelleger: the photo is legitimate, one can see the rear hoof of the bull below the dress on the left hand side. The backdrop may not be real -- but that doesn't affect the subject of the photo. russavia (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Look at the two front hooves and her foot in between. Pretty much everything is wrong about that, from the lighting to different resolution, impossible position, weird semi-transparent lower part of her shoe, and the semi-transparent roses. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I have added annotations to point out some of the issues. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Promotional tat. Julia\^talk 17:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Julia W: we have plenty of images here on Commons which are FP which one could call "promotional tat". Such as File:Air-to-air photo of a Sukhoi Superjet 100 (RA-97004) over Italy.jpg and File:Computer generated image of the Mærsk Triple E Class (1).jpg. Perhaps you could review your vote based upon guidelines, rather than being "promotional". russavia (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've misunderstood my position; the fact that this image and the other images are promotional is not so much the issue; it's that this one is particularly "tacky" and poorly done. A plane flying over attractive coastline – fine – planes do that sometimes. An actress in an impeccable and impractical gown hugging a subdued bull in a dusty ring with perfect roses at her feet, all fake and conjured from some marketer's wild imagination – is promotional tat. Julia\^talk 00:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even if Kabelleger was wrong - and I honestly believe he's right - the picture would imo still be not much more than rather insufferable kitsch. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kabelleger. Also her left forearm seems a bit long to me. --P e z i (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm 100% certain that it is photoshopped and she was not physically there, posing with the bull. As per all the other comments/annotations, the resolution/sharpness of the bull is much lower, the 'hair' of the bull when it overlaps her arm is much finer and is a different texture than elsewhere on its body, the poor transitions at her feet, the ridiculous shadows and the obviously fake roses... the list goes on. Diliff (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obviously photoshopped. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]