Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laughing woman.jpg

File:Laughing woman.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2018 at 08:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Laughing woman.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laughing woman.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
•  Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Processing of background has blurred much of the subject's hair. And does she consent to this unflattering image being used? Charles (talk)

• Unflattering ? Why unflattering ? That's a wonderful laughter ! Natural ! And she looks so happy ! Her face is full of joy ! Is it a problem ? Her expression is communicative, and she makes me laugh too, lol :-) This was shot in April 2012 during the lao new year. She laughed again when she discovered her on the paper, then I don't think she finds this picture "unflattering". Maybe rather funny. But though, are these portraits unflattering : File:Grape_worker.jpg, File:Mauritania_boy1.jpg, File:KnutSteen.1.jpg, File:Tonle_Sap_Siem_Reap_Cambodia_Girl-begging-for-money-with-snake-01.jpg, File:Senescence.JPG, File:Vietnamkrieg_Bootsfl%C3%BCchtling_1980.jpg, File:Old_zacatecas_lady.jpg ? Because they are all featured. There's a PR template on this file. And no laughing woman in our featured pictures of people until now -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment It is rare to catch a hearty, natural, good laugh in a closeup photo since most people just freeze up or strike a pose as soon as you point a camera in their direction. She looks joyful and nice but the hair caught in the processing is a bit of a bother though. It is fixable and I will support if that is fixed. Btw, the lines of her lips are exquisite! --cart-Talk 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• The processing is still poor - please check out the hair @W.carter, Johann Jaritz, and PumpkinSky: Charles (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• If I can overlook some artifacts and color noise in a bird photo and look at the bigger picture, I think I can live with a few stray hairs here. --cart-Talk 20:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Oppose Sorry, I agree with Charles that it is unflattering. Not that one is required to take a flattering photo on Commons, though. The focal length is wide-angle which creates a big head vs small body for the closeup viewpoint here, and makes her head appear much further forward of her body. That focal length is fine for a group photo or environmental photo but not a close portrait like this. -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• This portrait was shot at 16mm and it's just oustanding File:Central_African_Republic_-_Boy_in_Birao.jpg. A wide angle for portraits creates a proximity. This woman at 24mm looks as she is. This is not a fisheye. But even though, she would look so funny, because yes, that's the most important here -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• The photographer is not a close as you are here. I'm not going to debate lenses as the image speaks for itself. You are too close to the subject for comfort and the result is not pleasing. And I'm not really impressed that you think it would have merit to shoot her with a fisheye so "she would look so funny". If you use a lens like this, close up, you get an in-your-face rounded big head, small body look as we see here. I'm not interested in laughing at her so one shouldn't photograph someone that way to generate laughs, unless you want to mock them. -- Colin (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Mock them ? Because shot at 24x1,6= 38mm (equivalent full frame) ? Wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, even on full frame, if you stick a 35mm wide angle close up to someone's face, they will look unpleasantly distorted. It is simply a fact of subject-camera distance. Anyway, I've better things to do on a Friday evening than arguing about elementary portraiture on the internet, so unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"I've better things to do on a Friday..." We can see that, gentleman. But my portrait is a crop of a picture shot horizontally, then probably the same distance than the photograph above shot at 16mm. No problem, we can disagree. So enjoy the week-end ǃ Have fun ː-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Support per reasons given above. --cart-Talk 13:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Per cart. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose it just doesn't move me.--Peulle (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support PumpkinSky talk 15:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Colin. And Basile, the other portrait you refer too makes good use of the (moderate) wide angle to show interesting context. This one doesn't IMO. The timing isn't fortunate either. The laughing really isn't contagious here (I was even wondering "how the... is she feeling here"). - Benh (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Basically per Colin. Additionally I think the background is too busy for such a portrait. --Code (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)