Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kevin Symons
- Reason
- Another professional quality portrait received through image submissions. Thought it may be worth a nomination.
- Articles this image appears in
- Kevin Symons
- Creator
- Harry Cason (and, for what it's worth, uploaded with permission of the subject)
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose . Not well framed. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I think we tend to be a bit tough on portraits, but this is back focussed and per snowman, poorly framed. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. agree with NS, except that I kinda like quirky framing on some portraits. I'd say that for a 'professional' portrait, the framing is not accidental. It's very clearly back focussed though (focus should generally be on the nearest eye), and it made me wonder: perhaps the only reason this was released under a CC-BY-SA is because it wasn't one of the 'keepers'... But having said that, releasing a photo with poor focus and demanding your name be attributed to it wouldn't be great for business either! ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to assume that the target audience for these kind of shots are not photography enthusiasts, and so the technical details are often not that important. Instead, they are just trying to show the subject in a pleasing, memorable way. I would assume that any and all aspects are deliberate. Note that it's also possible that it was the subject that judges which ones were the "keepers", and so may well have missed aspects such as those you mention. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Very true, but any professional photographer would take dozens of similar photos in order to make absolutely sure that they had a keeper, because even the very best cameras misfocus occasionally. So the fact that this misfocussed image is the one that has been provided says something. But as for exactly what it says, well, you're right, it's debatable. As with most FP condidates that don't pass, it isn't that they're outright poor images, it's just that they're not as good as they could or should be. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to assume that the target audience for these kind of shots are not photography enthusiasts, and so the technical details are often not that important. Instead, they are just trying to show the subject in a pleasing, memorable way. I would assume that any and all aspects are deliberate. Note that it's also possible that it was the subject that judges which ones were the "keepers", and so may well have missed aspects such as those you mention. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you mean about quirky framing is sometimes interesting; however, I think that this image should include to top of the head and not clip the lapel. Snowman (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Badly framed, and extremely shallow depth of field. Jennifer500 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)