Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:George Washington Carver c1910 - Restoration.jpg/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:George Washington Carver c1910 - Restoration.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 02:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by anonymous - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)- Info Colour curves redone a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)- Support again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 04:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Yes, it's a little bit better now compared to the previous nomination. But it's still a weak portrait due to the dark background and focus in the chest – unfortunately, that's nothing you can change through retouching. --El Grafo (talk) 09:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)- Oppose per El Grafo. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Still supporting KennyOMG (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Still opposed, per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @El Grafo, Kruusamägi, and Daniel Case: } Frankly, I'd be much more sympathetic to opposition if a single better photo of Carver could be pointed to. For practical purposes, this basically works out to saying Carver has too dark skin to ever have a formal photo (which will include a white shirt) top ever have an acceptable photo - and criteria that exclude an entire race of people - an entirely unintended effect, of course, but what such focus on a white shirt can only amount to. Of course this isn't anyone's intent. However, in the absence of a single photo where Carver isn't wearing a white shirt, I don't think the objections are valid. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden: As I said in the previous nomination: It must be possible to choose a background that doesn't interfere with a dark skin tone and a white shirt. Make it medium grey and everything should be fine. Or make better use of lighting so that the face becomes a little bit lighter and make the background an even deeper black. It's really difficult to find examples here because we don't categorize people by skin color and wardrobe, but have a look at this and this. I think the difference in face-to-background contrast compared to this nomination is pretty strong in those two. Also, this image of Carver does not have that problem (but other ones …).
- Imho, the question "is this the best picture we have of Mr. Carter?" belongs to COM:VIC. What matters here is "Is this an awesome formal black and white portrait of a dark-skinned person?" – and my opinion on that unfortunately is "No, not really". Hope this makes my vote at least a bit more coherent? Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure - the examples you gave are A. from 50 years later B. Of a much lighter-skinned black man and C. 30 years later. This is mainly about what criteria we should use for these old, irreplaceable images. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Notable person don't make photo itself a masterpiece. This is still FP selection and not VI. There really isn't much more to say. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
