Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ethel Reed (ca. 1895) by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg

File:Ethel Reed (ca. 1895) by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2016 at 23:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Frances Benjamin Johnston - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 23:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The black-on-black background is regrettable, but nevertheless, this is a good picture and she has quite a piercing facial expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not a bug - it's a feature! And the feature's called "low key photography" --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm certainly aware it's an artistic choice, but I still regret it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are worse examples; this one, what things are is quite clear; you get much more obscured photos, especially if the skin tones aren't white, and the photographer still shoots them the same way. For example, while I think it's still a good image, File:George Washington Carver c1910 - Restoration.jpg would have definitely benefited from a lighter background to bring out the face. However, this was very much a photographic movement around this time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that was in style. It doesn't ruin this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just find it fun to discuss. =) By the way if you like her expression here, check out this one - and note her hand gesture. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's hilarious and a fine photo. I hope you restore that and nominate it. And I enjoyed this conversation; don't apologize. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please get to work on that one! I'll support that any day. Fancy such a pic as POTD. w.carter-Talk 08:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think the dark background works very nicely in this case, as it's still bright enough to make the clothing stand out against it. That's more or less what I had in mind when we were discussing the Carver image. --El Grafo (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ Moheen ^(talk) 16:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A plus for historic value in that's a picture of a notable woman taken by an early female photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support w.carter-Talk 08:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. Maybe I'm over-analyzing again, but: Her eyes are nearly dead center on the vertical axis, which is kind of a no-go in most cases. That's of course due to that large feather on the hat, which otherwise wouldn't fit into the frame. The hat is pretty dominant in this image, being 1) pretty large, 2) pretty contrasty (despite being black) and 3) positioned in a place where we'd normally expect the eyes to be in a portrait. The face is very small in comparison, and almost everything else is hidden by fur. So by conventional "rules", this image probably shouldn't work. The reason it actually does work very well for me is the expression on her face. More precisely: her eyes are powerful enough to draw my attention away from that ridiculous piece of head-wear. I could stare at this for hours … --El Grafo (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People