Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg

Barack Obama

Reason: I just discovered this image, languishing as an orphan. It's a super-high-res shot of an obviously notable politician. You can count his pores, and there's nice bokeh. The lighting is a little dark on the right but maybe this could be edited if it's bothersome? I think it captures his fiery oratory well. This probably shouldn't be on the main page for a while, but regardless it would be a good FP in my opinion (and is about a million times better than the John Edwards one).

Articles this image appears in: Political positions of Barack Obama
Creator: Ari Levinson (appears to be this guy, who I just sent a facebook message to confirm he is the uploader) Yep, just got confirmation that he was the uploader so we're good to go. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm no photog, but it's a lovely photo for all the reasons laid out above. I even like the shadow on the right; it's artsy, but not in a cloying way. --Friejose (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 Much better quality than the John Edwards photo that's currently FP (except for the nose hair). — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-15 21:53Z
Support amazing detail for a free image. Nasty noze hare though. de Bivort 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)ww[reply]
Support with no complaints about the lighting. This is gorgeous. Love the eyes (but tell the man to trim that nose hair). Durova^Charge! 22:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit 1 does it for me. Thanks. Durova^Charge! 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the Edit 1 better. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With half of the supporters mentioning an out-of-place hair or two, I went ahead and got out the nose trimmers. Chicago god (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 per nom, sans nose hair. Chicago god (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 Wow, is that detailed!--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Looks really good and extremely hi-res. Tim meh ! 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 only. Muhammad(talk) 05:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Great shot --Fir0002 10:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support edit 1 - great shot, skilful edit (great politician). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 11:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support edit 1 good quality picture. H92110 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, I wonder why no one cares about the lighting... ^8thstar 18:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's part of what makes this portrait dynamic. His face is adequately lit. Along with the knit brows, half turned head, parted lips, and slightly wrinkled shirt it gives this shot an unstudied look. Frankly I don't care who this is - the man could be a high school biology teacher and I'd support because it'd look like he's about to convince a classroom why Gregor Mendel's work was groundbreaking. Whatever is on this man's mind, he really cares about it. Durova^Charge! 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original with no complaints about the nose hair - this is part of the man, like Oliver Cromwell's wart, it simply belongs. Excalibur (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Part of the man"?? I'll agree that with certain people a scar or a mole is certainly "part" of them: a feature that is connected to their identity. Cindy Crawford, for example. Nose hair is not (and I hope does not become) a defining feature of this man.Chicago god (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, preference original. Clearly an excellent example of the best of Wikipedia. I don't think there's any pressing reason to remove the hair and stain - they're part of the original, and are barely visible at most resolutions - but I don't have very strong feelings. TSP (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is the waviness is the background... normal? gren グレン 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's normal distortion caused by the short depth of field. For portrait photography, a short depth of field is preferable in most cases.Chicago god (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't look like "normal distortion" to me. Compare these images taken at the same event. Anyway you look at it, the background colors don't match. The square, dark zones in the corners look to have been added or enhanced to create the subliminal image of a cross. --HailFire (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look at the third to last image on the page linked to. That background is consistent with the one in the image here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except that the shadows on his face are reversed, and the white band across the middle is quite different in width and angle. The latter could be due to a change of perspective, but the shadows? The image metadata indicate Date and time of data generation 02:04, 28 October 2006 and the extended details show Software used Adobe Photoshop CS2. --HailFire (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll admit that I'm a bit poor at detecting subtle differences between images. However, the details from the software would have been added even if it was used for something as simple as cropping and nothing more. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The photo seems to have been taken from a quite diffent angle from any of those on that page. The Wireimage photographer seems to have been positioned more or less in front of Obama; this photographer seems to have been positioned at his left shoulder, so only got a face-on shot when he turned his face to the left, as the photo clearly illustrates. Given this, surely we'd expect both the background and the shadows to be different? I can't see any signs of major editing in the image itself. TSP (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support both well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 11:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 Met him at a rally last weekend, got my copy of The Audacity of Hope signed. :) But in all seriousness, great shot, and the minor alteration to remove the unflattering aspects is in no way a substantial change, and only improves the quality of the picture. faithless (^speak) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No problem with the quality, but at least to me, the harsh light is very distracting. Clegs (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Clegs. Don't understand why everyone is fawning over this picture to such a degree. Yeah, it's very high resolution, but the lighting is pretty poor in my opinion. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Edit 1. Very nice photo. Interesting, high resolution, good sharpness. Does not currently appear in any article, however. Perhaps it was removed from the Barack Obama article? Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was removed from Barack Obama, although I'm not clear on the editor's reason for doing so. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I put the photo back in place. It was removed from the "Political Advocacy" section for no reason. If giving a stump speech, at a university, during a presidential election, in which you are a candidate, is not an example of advocating your politics... then I don't know what is. 68.166.155.242 (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and lord knows this isn't a politically motivated opposition. I find the photo unsettling-- it looks like he's turning around to demand that the photographer go away and leave him alone. Spikebrennan (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You wouldn't want your photo taken either if you just remembered that you didn't trim your nose that morning. 68.166.155.242 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a very good portrait, unappealing facial expression. --Janke | Talk 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not anger. It's the struggle for change and something different! :) — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-18 14:33Z
Oppose per poor facial expresion and other minor issues. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Excellent resolution and quality. Other then that, it stands out from your run of the mill portrait shot in that it shows an expression, which I find quite appealing and catching. The lighting isn't necessary to the photo but doesn't detract from it as far as I see it. --Mad Tinman _T _C 14:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting ^8thstar 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The image was again removed from Barack Obama (see here). The editor added a section to the talk page regarding changing the image but didn't explain why he removed the one being discussed here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's giving a speech, during which he talked about his political positions, so I added the image to Political positions of Barack Obama 68.166.155.242 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent lighting. Makes him seem to come out of the shadow into the light, together with the facial expression it makes a very natural and dynamic composition. The background tones are a perfect fit for the picture. Fabulous picture. --Dschwen 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to harsh lighting and weird facial expression. A studio shot would be much preferable. Cacophony (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, Strongly Oppose Edit 1. If the subject had nose hair and a shirt stain on this occasion, it is falsification of reality to remove them. (This comment applies more generally than to this one image. I know that this kind of over-eager modification of images is regrettably common on this page, but I hope that we can all agree that misrepresentation of the actual encyclopedic subject matter should be an absolute no-no for an encyclopedia. In a science publication it would constitute academic misconduct.) --mglg_(talk) 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. In no way does it misrepresent the subject. On the contrary, I would argue that keeping the nose hair and the stain would be a misrepresentation: on any given day, the subject is more likely than not to be seen well-groomed and in a shirt free of stains. Chicago god (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an image on the subject 'Barack Obama', not the subject 'Barack Obama on 27 October 2006 at 18:05'. So it's not a misrepresentation.--Svetovid (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1...this isn't a science publication.D-rew (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 as per comment directly above Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per Clegs Wladyslaw (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Fantastic resolution, and the lighting is quite dramatic...it almost looks like a studio photograph rather than an actual photo taken at one of his speeches Seriphyn (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose edit. On first glance, the lighting seems a bit harsh, but it suits the expression and there is still plenty of detail in the shadow. I hope we aren't reduced to literally whitewashing images; the nose hair and shirt stain are features, not bugs.--ragesoss (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg MER-C 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]