Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg

File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2009 at 19:04:44

•  Info created by Pete Souza, official White House photographer - uploaded by Hoshie - nominated by Clear -- Clear (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Clear (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment It's technically perfect (dof, composition, quality), but I guess that's something you could expect from a professional photographer + several (ten)thousand $$ equipment. Resolution is probably downsampled from 21mp. Compared to all the other portraits in Commons:Featured_pictures/People it's somehow something missing, too much " ID Picture" for my taste. It's a QI of course though. -- Gorgo (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Gorgo has summed up very well. It is a "passport photo". This will, of course, be absolutely right for the article on Obama. But I don't think that a studio photo produced by professionals in the context of a campaign where hundreds of millions of dollars has been spent is any encouragement to the thousands of amateurs who work hard to make Wikipedia a success. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Musia! (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose At least until the copyright thing has been solved. Calandrella (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • it's either cc-by or pd, both are perfectly fine. -- Gorgo (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Ehm... Shouldn't we know that clearly? Otherwise people could think it is PD and use it as such, while it is CC-BY. Calandrella (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Technically perfect. I don't see anything wrong with the truth, that it has been taken by a professional. —kallerna™ 20:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect shot. →Diti the penguin — 22:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very good, even for a studio shoot of a professional. @ Gorgo: Some photographers here at Wikipedia produce better pictures than professional photographers. Most of them also sell their picture outside Wikipedia. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Très bien --Acarpentier 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - The first thing that came to my mind was "no wow". Let's be more politically correct and say "no magic". -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I believe a better photographic portrait of this man will come out in future.--Morio (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope, they only get one portrait.--Avala (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support You have to take the importance of the man on the picture into consideration. The quality is good enough. No wow, but very important! --SvonHalenbach (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So if we had the cell phone smudgy portrait of an important person it would still be an FP material?--Avala (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No, but if you have a real picture made of freshly landed aliens, i nominate it personally here on FP and i don't care if you have taken it with your mobile phone camera or whatever else, as long as we can see real aliens on it. --SvonHalenbach (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 11:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)