Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesus as the good shepherd

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2012 at 13:39:31 (UTC)

Reason: Stunning colour, high EV for a modern-day depiction of Jesus
Articles in which this image appears: Jesus (lead image), Depiction of Jesus
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Others
Creator: Alfred Handel, photographed by Toby Hudson.

Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A much better picture is this, which is featured on Commons. Unfortunately it is only used in one Wikipedia article. ♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 16:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination. I think this full body crop has the higher value for an encyclopedia article (and perhaps a better colour balance). The other has fractionally more detail in the close-up crop, but at 18MPx, this one is way higher than our FP standards, and is easily suitable for any web application. --99of9 (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best depictions of the Good Shepherd, but I don't know whether the blurriness is natural here. Brandmeister t 00:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really see exceptional EV here. What distinguishes this from the multitude of other depictions of Jesus? I'm not too keen on the shot itself either. The backlighting doesn't work for me. I prefer the front-lit version. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the shot itself, I must say I prefer the backlit version. More striking. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose decent depiction but it's used in only two articles and this particular window has little historical significance. Pine^talk 08:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The version featured on Commons is significantly sharper and better detailed (yes, the nommed image is bigger overall, but in terms of the actual section of the window depicted the other one is actually marginally larger, so that certainly doesn't account for the difference). Colour balance is also significantly different; 99of9 mentioned this, and while I don't know which one has truer colours, the colours in the other version appear to be richer. --jjron (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Badly clipped blacks and blown highlights, and it just isn't as sharp as I'd expect. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Marginally important and marginal photography. Still a "good" pic. but not FP. (I should probably look and see if we have any previous stained glass or religious pictures as that might sway me...).TCO (Reviews needed) 07:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]