Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reiner Haseloff (Martin Rulsch) 09.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Reiner Haseloff (Martin Rulsch) 09.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 12:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
We aim for evaluating the image on FPC, not the effort/hardship for its making. I don't think the time frame matters at all in this case - it is a self-made limitation and could easily be circumvented by asking the politician for a private photo session or extend the time per photo ratio in the project. The project's current mass processing is unlikely to encourage perfectionism or an eye for detail. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you do; and I evaluate lots of FP's in this category as worse than this one which is why I nominated it. Surely, you can disagree, I neither mind nor care because evaluation is unobjective, related to the people who participate in this evaluation, their personal mood, understanding of FP, etc. pp. (which you can perfectly see here in different opinions on this very photo). But, imo, looking at all circumstances how a photo was taken can at least improve your understanding of it, isn't it? Besides, I strongly doubt the easiness—a Minister-President will not take more than 5 minutes for such photography (which he did for us). Plus, we can discuss whether photos have to be perfect to be featureable (what all Wikipedia articles are not) or if they should just copy the reality (why in fact should I have removed the button or cut off his ear to make a, in your opinion, perfect photo?). But that would take us too far away. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you do care, hence your reply in the first place. Our guidelines state "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." Furthermore "Extensive manipulations must be clearly described in the image text [...]" Some issues as expressed above (highlights at the forehead and eyeball reflections) could be easily edited, complying with our guidelines. Don't get me wrong: You shouldn't "remove" the button or "cut off" his ear. I didn't propose photoshopping them away and even if you would chose this option you could do so by adding {{Retouched picture}}. A more sophisticated pose could have prevented these issues and within thoughtful consideration and preparation lies the quality I consider decisive for a Featured Picture. I don't think that this has to be an either-or-discussion: a perfect (insert your definition here) photo is capable of displaying reality. It's always refreshing to see this kind of debate sprouting its shoots from opposing votes such as mine, for in the end it remains a subjective verdict. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ofc, I reduced the highlights and reflections. If you think that it's not enough, do not hesitate to improve my picture. I would be very grateful. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support For me this is a fine portrait with good pose and composition. When I evaluate "wow" factor in cases where it's not clear-cut, I ask myself, "Does this image make me want to read more about the subject?" And here I'd say, yes it does. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Excellent studio portrait. Nothing better to expect in this genre. If this one is not FP, then we also should delist this or this one (just to name a few). --A.Savin 20:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you. A lot of other portrayals on FP are much worse than this one. Espcecially (sorry Peter Weis) the one of Angela Merkel. Nearly everything is wrong there (light, level of details, composition, expression, massive NR). The photo here shows a State Premier of a German state, perfectly photographed. And I also agree with DerHexer: A State Premier (Ministerpräsident) has for sure not many time for comprehensive preparitions. "Asking the politician for a private photo session" is not an option in this case :) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per other. Eine Softbox links und rechts mit richtig eingemessenem Licht, ergibt zweifelsohne ein perfekt belichtetes, scharfes Bild, aber leider kein Exzellentes. In dieser Situation muss sich der Fotograf nur um das Motiv/Person kümmern und dann dürfen solche Sachen wie oben erwähnt nicht passieren. Man bürstet auch die Schuppen von der Jacke wenn sie da sind, den bei dieser Auflösung sieht man nun alles. Der Herr Haseloff wäre ihnen für diese Aufmerksamkeit dankbar gewesen. Was mich auch noch stört, ist die unterschiedlich Darstellung der beiden Schultern, entweder beide angeschnitten oder beide komplett sichtbar. Bei weniger schräger Schulterstellung, ergibt sich auch kein so heftiger Größenunterschied der Schultern. Leider ist mein Englisch so schlecht, dass ich meinen Kommentar in Deutsch schreiben muss um Missverständnisse zu verhindern. Ich denke du hast nun viele Tipps bekommen und das nächste Mal klappt alles besser. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Die Schuppen hatte ich eigentlich weggestempelt. Aus irgendwelchen Gründen waren sie nach Abspeichern wieder da. Kann ich natürlich noch weiter entfernen. Tatsächlich ist das ein Ausschnitt aus einem Foto, in dem beide Schultern vollständig aufgenommen sind (ähnlich wie hier); tatsächlich gefällt mir das aber so besser. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Per A.Savin and Tuxyso. I just find very funny that, during aaaaall these very serious technical discussions, nobody notices the dust spot at right (annotated). Sorry to be so "basic". --Jebulon (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, I thought that I have removed all of them in all pictures. Thanks for your bright eyes! I removed the scarf too. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support High quality picture and per A.Savin / Tuxyso indeed better than some other FP. Regards, Vogone (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Reiner_Haseloff_(Martin_Rulsch)_09.jpg&oldid=90341173"