File talk:Elizabeth Warren 2016.jpg

Image crop

User Sternoc is edit warring the version of this image. This crop is superior to this one because it is more portrait-like. Portraits include (at least) most of the shoulders and upper torso area, rather than zooming in on the head. For examples see en-Hillary Clinton, en-Abraham Lincoln, and en-Charles, Prince of Wales. Mandruss (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Portraits are fine for top level politicians and royalty, especially if they are standing in a way that a nice portrait can be cropped but headshots are better when they are not, Warren is slightly bending which means if we go full body, it would look odd she was leaning in the picture, by cropping and jsut focusing on her face, people will not notice that she is leaning...--Stemoc 08:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Images of some women politicians who are not top level politicians or royalty: en-Women in the United States Senate#List of female senators. Maybe one or two zoom in on the head, sort of. The portrait crop of this image does not look odd to me, at least not as odd as zooming in on the head. Further, your aspect ratio is way out of whack. Mandruss (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The aspect ratio thing is nonsense, people when they crop image to an aspect ratio are sacrificing image quality for size/resolution and usually end up with an image which is not in focus and has lots of 'open' spaces making the image look odd in infoboxes..I crop for infobox suitability, not how it would look on someone's website page..Yeah those "official" images of senators you listed above may look ok on that page but very poor in their infoboxes, such as Jeanne Shaheen, Claire McCaskill and Susan Collins--Stemoc 01:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)