Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ladakh Woman (Portrait)

Portrait of a Ladakh Woman

Reason: Beautifully lit and framed photo of a woman in traditional dress. Reminiscent of an Andrew Wyeth painting.
Articles this image appears in: Ladakh
Creator: Steve Evans (Flickr)

Support as nominator Verne Equinox (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was all ready to support this stunning portrait. I mean, look at the light and the subject and the ENC value. However, at full size, there is an unacceptable number of compression artifacts that muddle the image significantly. I hope it would be possible to get a less compressed version. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To be sure, the content of the image is worthy of an FP and the composition and lighting is good. However, the compression, making this image a tiny 85kb, is extremely detrimental to the quality of the image. Compression artifacts are visible throughout the image and cannot be fixed with software. A great shame because in other respects, it is a fine image. Capital photographer (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if anyone's in touch with the Creator, but it'd be great to get a higher-resolution version (sans compression) if possible. If not, the photo's so striking that I'm ready to support anyway on technique, EV, and rarity of photo ops. SingCal 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I used to be in touch with him, but I'm agnostic now. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gosh, you'd think being the Creator, he could fix the artifacts in an instant...breathe | inhale 02:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heh. Glad I could do my part in giving FPC something to laugh at. SingCal 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An edited version has been added. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit is little better. Compression artifacts are still quite obvious and the face seems to be lacking fine detail. Capital photographer (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both Great pose, but there's artifacting, especially in the top right corner, and the blown windows on the R side are distracting. Clegs (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I sent the photographer a message, but I don't know if he'll get back before this is due to close. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He said he would get us a higher resolution in ten days. He's travelling and doesn't have access. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose we Suspend the nom until we hear back; ten days isn't too bad. Matt Deres (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support above proposed extension, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended until 17 May pending high res version. --jjron (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom re-opened May 18 No sense waiting much longer. Matt Deres (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any point sending it back to the top of the nom queue though? If there is no update, there is nothing new to vote on. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got the picture. Uploading it now. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It will need a few edits. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about removing the other smaller versions to clean up the page?41.222.30.20 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That could cause confusion because all of the opinions given so far refer to those two versions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think at least Edit 1 could be removed since the sticking point was resolution and jpeg compression, not noise. Any further edits should be done from the original (version 3, that is), rather than the first nominated image. If we mention that the old images can be accessed via a link on the nomination, rather than showing the actual image, then I don't think it will cause confusion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seem to recall that there is a way to hide an image. It's been used for adult content images before. I can't figure out how to do it though. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - {{Template:Hidden:[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb]]}} should work. Thegreenj 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Add version 4 that's about the best that I can get out of it with more time I don't have to spare. Its a very noisy original, I unfortunately had to downsample slightly (you know how I hate that) to combat some of it but its still 1300x2000. Mfield (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Version 4. The head dress sparkles in this version and the windows aren't 'blown'. Good job. Verne Equinox (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Version 4. Mfield (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support version 4 The hair looks grainy, though. Spencer^T♦^C 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Version 4. Too much noise, sorry. Kyle McInnes (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all. Those which aren't too small are too noisy. Pstuart84 Talk 12:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, they're all above minimum size. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope you're not becoming preoccupied by my interpretation of the size requirement, but essentially it's a minimum and just because a photo is above the minimum doesn't mean the size is suitable for the subject in question. Pstuart84 Talk 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't worry. There is ongoing debate about this. It ultimately comes down to this: if the de facto size requirement has changed, that should be reflected in the criteria. On the other hand though, we have to be careful not to base our size requirement on what the camera can do, but what is a sensible size that conveys all the pertinent information, e.g. do I need to be able to see individual hairs on the trunk of an elephant for it to be an FP? What about the fine structure of a person's clothing? Wouldn't it be nice to see that? And already, you've thrown out a whole load of historic images where we have no hope of obtaining a copy at the appropriate resolution because, well, history happens only once. Same for extinct animals or people, subjects no longer in public view, etc. etc. Any further raising of the bar will increase systemic bias. Does that make sense? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 10:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]