Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Official portrait of Barack Obama

Official portrait of United States President Barack Obama

Reason: A very impressive image, shot by an impressive photographer. An instantly recognizable photograph, seen throughout the entire world, as a representation of the current President of the United States. Though I am personally not a supporter of President Obama, this image is extremely inspiring, and a perfect capture of the subject. The lighting and contrast of the photo is superb, with the red, white and blue flag in the background providing a sense of integrity, as well as patriotism. Very professional image that is worthy of being a featured image on the English Wikipedia.
Articles this image appears in: Barack Obama, President of the United States, etc.
Creator: Pete Souza

Support as nominator --Gage (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also, I'd like to point out, since you kindly provided the link, that the closing administrator on the previous nomination had suggested relisting the image, when it was not promoted back in January. Not that it matters, but I just wanted to make sure that it is noted for this process as well. Gage (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Am I allowed to cite my diatribe during the previous nom? Compositionally, it's a very poor pastiche of the Reagan one. Yes, it's been shot with a digital camera and yes, it's the President of the United States. These two things are all this image has to commend itself as a featured picture. Not enough, IMO. --mikaul^talk 11:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as before --Muhammad(talk) 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The background is rather bland, other than the color of the US Flag, the tie is slightly askew with heavy shadowing beneath, and the subject's facial expression looks, umm, constipated. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support high technical quality, good representation of the subject, among the very best images of living people on Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV, good quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very recognisable and looks good with the flag in the background. Lizzie Harrison 11:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the presidential portrait photos (certainly this one and other modern ones) aren't of EV, providing an HQ portrait of one of the most powerful people in the world... Then no biographical image is a FP. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel there are many other photographs of the president that are much better - they show his personality and are a better balance. I understand the reason the president is off center (to allow the flag to be seen and as a whole, they are center), but I still find the fact he is so off center (you can see down his arm!), along with the shadowing mentioned above, to be distracting. Further, if you look at other presidential photos, they are much more centered than this one. I'm not disputing the EV of the photo... it is a photo of the current President of the United States. I oppose because of the above reasons AND it simply isn't as quality as the other presidential photos as a whole, IMO.Zulualpha (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Zulualpha -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 05:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, off center, unnatural expression, poor background. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See rule of thirds. Durova²⁹⁷ 22:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnatural expression?? I have no tie to this image, but really? Less natural than File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg? Than File:Peter Levy BBC.jpg? Than File:Saddam Hussein at trial, July 2004-edit1.JPEG? It's a guy sitting there. I think the background is fine, but whatever on that front, but I do not see how his expression is an issue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer all your questions: yes. It's a poor image, no action, no story, just a mundane expressionless photo. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's... What a portrait is... That's what basically every FP portrait is... Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's a passport photo, or maybe something from the 19th century but without the decent lighting and depiction of powerful persona. --mikaul^talk 07:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then will there be several dozen FP for removal noms coming from you guys? Because again, the standard for FP portraits is pretty clear from the ones currently in the library, and this photo meets them. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry, but the positioning is really distracting and takes away from the image. Plus, the flags look really blurry and my eyes kinda burn from looking at the image because of the blur, especially when they try to adjust to read the words which are too close to center not to be drawn towards. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support obvious EV. And i do like the composition...for once a people picture with a bit of originality. Nice rule of thirds. Can't understand why people are so put up by this composition. Ksempac (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]