Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg

File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 06:59:41

Info uploaded by Madmax32 - nominated by Claus (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Déjà vu. —kallerna™ 07:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A technically perfect photo and an excellent female specimen of Homo sapiens. The key features of the anatomy are clearly visible, giving the picture significant educational value. The phylum Arthropoda is more prominent in the Featured Picture library than the phylum Chordata, and far more than the genus Homo. I welcome any opportunity to add something to the small stack of Featured human pictures. -- JovanCormac 13:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geolocation, phone number would be nice! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely image, but weird looking backlighting [that could be my eyes though :)] Is the model actually at this location for the shoot? Julielangford (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've seen a voting of this photo before, and it's stiched from two images. —kallerna™ 14:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So my eyes are fine :) Julielangford (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like this image, and more people images are needed here, its a pity that an extensive edit isnt mentioned in the description, but I think it deserves support based on the model alone.
Support Julielangford (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – I agree, we need more pictures of Homo sapiens sapiens and hopefully not just of people who look too perfect to be true. Of course, the image fulfills the guidlines (one might argue about the value though). On the other hand I think an image that was obviously made with alot of effort deserves a better background than that. So neutral to me. --Ernie (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Tomascastelazo! --Karel (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongy retouched, which is against our guidelines (“Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.”). You can tell by the typical look the model has (I'm familiar with such photo manipulation). →Diti the penguin — 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can argue that the main subject is not Michelle merkin the person, but Michelle Merkin the product. Then any sexed-up image (as I suppose it is the standard in the "industry") would be perfectly acceptable. Then again, you give zero evidence or even any concrete indications and base you argument fully on one little known authority in the field: you ;-) I'm familiar with such photo manipulation. --Dschwen (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that the picture of the year is heavily doctored, there used to be three horses, I think your argument fails. GerardM (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I assume you got the indentation wrong? --Dschwen (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Econt (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as Diti. Downtowngal (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has around the same amount of editing most pictures here do, it looks the way it does because of a much more intricate lighting set-up. --Calibas (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the fill-in flash usually accentuates the natural defaults. If we can't see them on the model, it's obviously because they have been digitally removed. →Diti the penguin — 11:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent professional glamor portrait. The subject was generous enough to place this under free license. Technically sufficient for featured quality, and recognizing it as featured may encourage more professionals to place material under free license. Durova (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongy retouched, bad crop. There's one photo of Michele Merkin which is better. —kallerna™ 14:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Kallerna, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heavy retouching is the norm for these types of images, so I don't see a problem with it. Image is of good quality and is very representative of modelling photography. Also as Durova. --ianaré (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most people are ok with retouching of images nowadays, especially on a glamour shot like this. I do glamour shots, and I retouch some a lot, but I always state it. I think that is the main difference with most people, they don't mind it, but it needs to be stated. I still support this though, based just on the model. Julielangford (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks artificial. --AM (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --JalalV (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Durova. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support For Durova. Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Durova, Julielangford, Jovan and others. We need more celeb FPs and this is a good one.--Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a glamour shot, this is good, and the model is well enough known. It is a standard in that industry for the photographs to be airbrushed and photoshopped and altered until they are almost unrecognisable; anyone who doesn't know that and is fooled by this pic should definitely not be looking at glossy magazines. Maedin\^talk 12:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you are right, but we are no glossy magazine here. --AM (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I probably wasn't clear: I wasn't suggesting that we are. It was just a joke, that if people think these airbrushed, touched-up people are real, they are probably suffering from a severe inferiority complex, ;-) As a photography and compositional type, these are, by definition, artificial. I was only implying that it's common knowledge. Maedin\^talk 13:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see. These kind of pics are produced for advertising, I presume. --AM (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand retouching and artificiality are part of this genre; that is not why I oppose. It just doesn't wow me. Jonathunder (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Jovan Cormac. We need more Homo Sapiens pictures. ;oD Yann (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 15 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\^talk 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]