This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
The photography that I propose I consider to be better because it focuses on the person's face, without so many distractions (such as sharing a shot with three and a half other faces), and it has good quality.--Baprow (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original is fine (and it is equally centered on the person too). At +200px the lack of quality of the photograph becomes apparent with that close crop. Anyways why did you botch the colours of the photograph? Old photographs usually have clear tones (and it's fine). Botching them with amateur photoshop skills does not improve anything. The effect on that man's forehead is ominous.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the original, Valcárcel appears surrounded by too many people. That is distracting. With the new photo, his face gains more prominence, without needing to clarify that he is next to someone. The quality of the photography is not in evidence with this close cut in any way, although I doubt that in these we will agree. And by the way, there is nothing "ominous".--Baprow (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The quality of the photography is not in evidence with this close cut in any way, although I doubt that in these we will agree." Correct, I don't agree. You have not persuaded me. I suggest you to use a closer crop in other Wikipedia articles where the image does not need to be renderised with such size (tables and the likes). Not here. In that case, I may also suggest you: 1) to return the photo to its original colours; your photoshop "job" is a disservice to the photograph 2) to drop the pretense (or rather fixation) with a black & white approach in regard of image use across projects.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we agree that we disagree. I will also ignore your ad hominem arguments and take your suggestion of a version with the previous tone. Let's see how it is.--Baprow (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)