Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seated woman with blonde hair-3177506.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Seated woman with blonde hair-3177506.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2018 at 06:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Seated woman with blonde hair
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •  Info created by ivanovgood, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Yann (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Good portrait, but she looks unhappy or at least bored. Is this notice a problem? "This file, which was originally posted to Pixabay, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid. See Category:Unreviewed files from Pixabay for further instructions." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ikan Kekek: Review is waiting for 6 days. You should apply for "license review" right. ;) And "looks unhappy" is not a criteria for FP... Regards, Yann (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It goes to wow. I'm not wowed if the model looks unhappy or bored. The relationship between the artist and the model as depicted in the portrait is absolutely central to portraiture, in the opinion of many great artists - or to put it another way, a great portrait shows something interesting about the subject's personality. Being merely uncomfortable, bored, or generically unhappy-looking is not compelling. I will think about this more and reconsider tomorrow or the next day, but I sure am tempted to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ikan Kekek: Sorry, but for the 13 years the FP contest is going on, and I have been on Commons, I have never seen such a justification for opposing. I don't understand why, for portraits, some people look for justification outside of the criteria used in other cases. You are not the only one, the last I remember was "Seating on the railway track is dangerous"... Hopefully, "looking happy" is not a valid criteria for a FP: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc., etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yann, what finite set of "criteria" do you think reviewers apply? The only criteria that matters is that the image is among "the finest on Commons", in the opinion of a good majority of reviewers. -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with Ikan that the woman looks a bit vacant -- asking for someone to put a thought-bubble on the image. The colour is a bit yellow orange (see the whites of her eyes). The world is full of images of attractive women, lit and photographed with professional-level equipment. I'm looking for more than just technical competence for an FP on an educational media repository. Are we seeing a great character or expression? Does the person's culture or personality show? Notability helps, but not required. Is the setup (lighting, hair, makeup, technique) demonstrating a particular kind of portrait photography particularly well? And so on. -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colin: Your comment about the color is valid. I have tried to fix that. Any help would be welcome on this point. Other criteria are irrelevant. We have plenty of nominations here, where the educative value is nearly non-existent, and people only vote on the picture quality. Why a different system here? (And to me, people's faces are much more interesting than bugs, random places, etc.) And yes, the world may be full of images of attractive women, but very few of them are under a free license. Compared to other subjects, we have very few good portraits. So yes, I argue that this is one the finest portraits we have on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find your statement "Other criteria are irrelevant." to be at all helpful to this discussion. If you wish to have a personally restricted criteria for judging portraits, that's your choice. Dismissing the views of other reviewers as irrelevant is rather hostile. We will each look at this image and weigh its qualities and bring with us our own likes, dislikes, experience, etc. Some people might like expression on her face; others consider it suboptimal. You can disagree of course, and try to change people's minds, but telling me my opinions are irrelevant is a quick way to make me change it to a strong oppose and unwatch. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course we are discussing quality. Will you please stop using the word "irrelevant" because if you use it again I really will change my vote and unwatch. There are lots of different kinds of portraiture. Some want blank expressions (fashion photography, say). Some might want "melancholy", as Basile sees here. And perhaps there are styles of portraiture where this blank look here is exactly what is desired. Do you think the only "quality" of a portrait is the lighting and a sharp lens? Our "criteria" don't mention bokeh, yet that is often an essential part of a portrait. Is that to be dismissed as "irrelevant"? Do we have rules about how to judge bokeh? Well, I don't need or want rules to judge the pose and expression on a model in a photo. There are whole books on the topic of posing subjects for portraiture. I'm fine if others think those aspects of the photo are good enough to support. I also find the round catchlight in her eyes is just a bit too large, central and dominant. Or do I need a catchlight criteria to mention that? -- Colin (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin: You are mixing up objective criteria, which are absolutely on the point, and subjective criteria, which are debatable (to put it mildly). If we don't have a mention of bokeh, that's an oversight, and should be corrected. It is a quality criteria essential for portraits (and other cases). Regards, Yann (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Melancholy and attractive woman -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm not wowed. I can also say that I read the above discussion and now I'm thinking that's several minutes of my life I'll never get back. I can never understand why some people just won't leave well enough alone but have to start arguing their point of view whenever a reviewer here disagrees with them. The Guidelines (which also uses quotations marks around the words "wow factor", btw.) clearly state that there is no objective criterium for this: "An image "speaks" to different people differently", so when somebody says that they just don't get that "wow" feeling when looking at an image, don't argue, just suck it up and hope that enough other people do. If they do, there's a chance. If they don't, well, then the image doesn't appear to have a strong enough appeal. It doesn't prevent you from liking it, it's just the way the system here works. Live with it.--Peulle (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose For whatever reason, her face looks unreal, which coupled with the expression (or lack thereof) makes me think the next image in the sequence is going to be her with her faceplate off, showing the underlying machinery and circuitry. Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Well, I must say, your argument that my viewpoint on portraiture was "irrelevant" certainly persuaded me to change my opinion. NOT! Oppose per my remarks above and per others. Next time, try respecting my argument and engaging with it, if you'd like me to consider changing my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose While this is an old school glamour portrait, my main objection is the orientation of it. Had it been in portrait format and included all of her hair, that would have created a beautiful line against the dark dress and matched the lines in the background as well as the rectangular shape of her face. That would certainly have been grounds for wow. (Approximation) --Cart (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Cart -- P999 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 09:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Seated_woman_with_blonde_hair-3177506.jpg&oldid=298967361"