Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wayne Gretzky
Appearance
- Reason
- Taken from PPR as I was archiving. A good high-res shot of Gretzky, to the best of my knowledge the best ice-hockey player ever. This is most likely scanned from film; it has a bit of noise, but is reasonable, and I can't see anything else that even comes close in terms of overall quality (size, pose, action, etc). Some people may grumble over some parts being cutoff, but it seems to compare well to many other 'famous people' FPs.
- Articles this image appears in
- This is a noise reduced version of Image:Wgretz.jpg. I have nominated the improved version from PPR - obviously it will replace the original in all articles if promoted. Original is in Wayne Gretzky, National Hockey League, New York Rangers, and about seven other articles.
- Creator
- Original uploader was Hakandahlstrom; larger version uploaded by IrisKawling. Edit by Krm500.
- Support as nominator jjron (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise everywhere (esp. on his face). It has other flaws, but noise is the one that will be difficult to get away from. You might be able to make a little bit of progress on the noise with a pseudo-posterisation technique, but I'm not getting my hopes up just yet. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fairly positive that what you call noise is actually film grain (that was before the digital cameras for those who remember ;-) ). And I'd strongly advise against any posterisation techniques to remove it. --Dschwen 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to remove some of it, this is the edited version, the original file is in the peer review. Maybe someone can do a better job then me with it? --Krm500 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know how the cause being film grain excuses the fact that it compromises the quality of the image. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fairly positive that what you call noise is actually film grain (that was before the digital cameras for those who remember ;-) ). And I'd strongly advise against any posterisation techniques to remove it. --Dschwen 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I like it. --Chinese3126 (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit. per nom. Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs 22:56, 12 February 2008
- Support edit 1...though I'm probably a bit biased, being a hockey fan. We need more sports images and this is a great shot. A pity some parts are cut off. CillaИ ♦ XC 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Here is the original photo from the author on flickr. As you can see I've applied general color correction to eliminate the yellowish hue, and a slight crop. So any further touchup attempts should probably be made using the original, no? However I'm not sure how much more can be done. IrisKawling (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment http://www.flickr.com/photos/dahlstroms/252547547/ indicates the author licensed it as 'all rights reserved' was the license changed from Creative Commons, or was this licensing ever valid ? Shifthours (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- GFDL/CC licenses are irrevocable and the uploader appears to be the owner of the photo. Suggest sending a Flickr mail to make sure. MER-C 08:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hakandahlstrom uploaded the photo himself at my request, licensing it under CC. I just color corrected it for him and transfered it the commons. IrisKawling (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader has worked as a professional sports photographer, and has contributed with many high quality images in the past. You can trust him regarding image ownership. I recently contacted him asking if he had a better resolution photo, he didn't want to upload any higher resolution or any new images since some of his work had been stolen here on wikipedia, but hoped the current size would be enough for a FPC. I think it's a shame that the image policy is the way it is, because many photographers stop contributing. I would gladly release my images for use by the Wikimedia Foundation and all educational use, but having to releasing them for any large corporation to use is bs IMO. --Krm500 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support good shot! H92110 (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support edit 1. Composition is not the greatest, but the noise reduction has dealt with the major problem. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- So does that cancel out your Oppose above? --jjron (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition - cut off arm and hockey stick. Sharpness is poor also after the noise reduction --Fir0002 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say at least 70% of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People have cutoff bits (not including what is obviously cutoff in a head-and-shoulders portrait). You can pretty clearly tell he's playing hockey, and it's not like it's being used to illustrate hockey sticks or gloves. In other words, I don't think the cutoff bits are that relevant, which I said in the nom anyway. --jjron (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. It's the composition that kills it for me - I know portraits can be cut off at the shoulders, but for a hokey player's stick to be cut off just seems out of place. Pstuart84 Talk 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Composition may not be perfect, but this is high-quality and uber-encyclopedic, and it's not like we're going to get a better photo of the world's best hockey player ever playing hockey. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Wgretz edit2.jpg MER-C 08:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)