Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 17:51:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  •   Comment Poco, your oppose is just as invalid as one without any reason as you are not critiquing the photo itself. An {{Abstain}} is the better option for you and anyone with a similar view. – Lucas 18:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose The picture frame is encroaching on him too closely and the decorative multi-color string on the flag is too distracting. Also something feels weird about how his chest gets more in shadow/darker further down. Size is quite small and noise levels too high for a studio shot. – Lucas 18:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose -- Distorted perspective, as indicated by the picture frame to the right of the photographer. Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 18:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Weak support Sharp and overall a good portrait, but the resolution isn't great. I think it clears the bar overall, but it might do better at FP on Wikipedia where encyclopaedic value is prized somewhat more than on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose As presidential portraits go, this is rather bleak and uninteresting. Ok, we were spoiled with good photos during the Obama administration, but still... It lacks depth and the background is distracting (he is standing too close to the wall), including a cord that makes him look like a jumping jack. --Cart (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose He looks strange - this is not his face as we usually see it. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Agreed with Uoaei1, this is probably how Trump wants to be seen (ie encclopedic value at most), not how he is most of the time. -- KennyOMG (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Distracting background with the picture frame and the ugly wall paper. The overall image seems to be a bit underexposed and oversharpened which brings the noise to a visible and disturbing level. --Granada (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose At first sight it's just a pretty boring portrait that just doesn't manage to stick out among the gazillions of pictures of US-government people in front of US flags we have here at commons. That alone would be reason to oppose. If you actually start to analyze it … well, when it was released PetaPixel and Jared "Fro" Polin (among others) already did that job so let's just say they did not think it was a "good" portrait. --El Grafo (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Neither a great quality nor representative. Sorry --A.Savin 10:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per Granada and El Grafo. The photographer, Shealah Craighead, is a professional, so I assume she knows how to do a high-quality portrait. This one gives the impression he just said, "Look, I'll just stand here. You can take this dumb "official portrait" you keep going on about right now... I don't care if you don't have any of your "lighting kit" with you. My guys take great photos with just their cell phones. Your camera must be really dumb if it needs lighting kit to take a good photo." -- Colin (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I'm not so sure, although I could well imagine him saying something like that. She may be working as a photographer, but professional (I mean as in "highly skilled")?? Have you looked at her other work? It's all bad angles, strange crops and photos in existing light. Looks like the best US photographers are democrats. ;-) --Cart (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my knowledge there can be a difference in the English language between "working as" and "being a pro" in everyday parlance. It is similar to the ranking system we have here on Commons. On your user page you have the userbox stating "This user is able to take professional quality photographs." In that sense the word "professional" is used for quality level rather than occupation. "Being a pro" can simply mean that s(he) knows what s(he) is doing. --Cart (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there are many meanings to "professional", though with photography I think it is mainly used to distinguish from "amateur" in the sense of making money, earning a living at it. I would expect a professional to be able to reliably deliver acceptable quality to time/budget, and that the more you pay the higher the expectations. Another mark of a professional is to take and absorb a whole lot of grief from the client, and to deliver what the client wants, rather than to their own taste. Given the number of "great, highly talented" people he's hired and then fired, she must be doing something right to still have a job. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have amended my comment to clarify what I mean. I think most people got it but precise meaning is obviously imperative here in such an important discussion. --Cart (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone once said "Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process." I got your point and the word-play. -- Colin (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I withdraw my nomination -- Eatcha (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg&oldid=355287914"