Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jeremy Corbyn
Jeremy Corbyn edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2015 at 19:31:12 (UTC)
- Reason
- A very well-composed high resolution portrait of the subject. Original photo was slanted but the crop is a vast improvement. Also uniquely captures him wearing iconic newsboy cap.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2015, Leader of the Labour Party (UK), Leaders of political parties in the United Kingdom, List of shadow holders of the Great Offices of State, Beard Liberation Front (sorry, I couldn't resist, unlike the BLF)
- FP category for this image
- People/Political
- Creator
- User:DavidChief, edited by User:Stemoc and User:JJARichardson
- Support as nominator – JJARichardson (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note On further inspection of the image I noticed some unfortunate artifacts that I've cropped out. Now I think the image is flawless. JJARichardson (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support - a fine image. And an excellent likeness. He actually looks well turned-out, but not predictably smart, i.e. shows some personality. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Crop is far too tight. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Uploaded an alternative crop with less tightness. JJARichardson (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've tried again and managed to produce a much less tighter crop in the alt. I trust that this is an acceptable standard. JJARichardson (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Uploaded an alternative crop with less tightness. JJARichardson (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose; tight crop, awkward side-view. Surely a very useful photograph for us to have, but not a FP-level portrait. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're saying all side view portraits are "awkward", or just this one? Why is that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am saying that this one is awkward. His eyes are not visible, and neither is one side of his face. The pose (in my very-much amateur opinion) is actually quite dynamic, and so if the photograph was taken from a different angle, my opinion may be different. Featured pictures are meant to be of "professional" quality- this does not strike me as a paradigm example of professional-level portraiture or photo-journalism (but, to stress, no disrespect is meant to the photographer- this is a very valuable photo for us to have, and is of good quality- it's just not of that "next level" of quality. (There is a degree of judgement in this, meaning that reasonable people could disagree.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, they could. Thanks for expanding. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just as some quick examples: File:Royal Wedding Stockholm 2010-Slottsbacken-05 edit.jpg strikes me as an excellent "photojournalism" portrait, in that it gives us some context and understanding of what is going on as well as an idea of what the subjects look like. We have a lot of excellent "studio portrait" FPs, but (given that the subject is also a middle-aged bearded politician with a slightly off-beat dress sense) File:Nils Torvalds MEP, Strasbourg - Diliff.jpg is a good example. A nice example of a more "candid" portrait is File:Hayley McFarland cropped.jpg. We also have "action shots", in which the person is "performing"- for Corbyn, this could be mid-speech. File:Brian Nankervis 1, 2011, jjron NR.jpg is a nice example of this. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, they could. Thanks for expanding. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just a second opinion here. I wouldn't say it's a clear-cut "'all side view portraits are awkward", but they do often have the appearance of being snapshotty. Good portraits generally fall into two categories: Firstly, the formal portrait with the subject making eye contact with the camera, and secondly, the 'photojournalist style' action portrait. This is clearly the latter, but IMO the the tight crop takes away some of the context that is often important for this style of portrait. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is no context deleted by the crops. The original version was this and the logic of cropping it was to level out the subject and remove the awkward tilt. Unless the tilt would be acceptable in the first place? Personally I think the photo is a uniquely good capture of Corbyn's appearance: especially the natural facial expression. JJARichardson (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- You miss the point I was making though (perhaps I wasn't entirely clear though). I don't mean that this particular crop compared to the original uploaded file removed context. I mean that the wider framing and composition of a 'photojournalist style portrait' normally benefits from context to be be a useful and interesting photo. If all you want is a head shot like the above, then a side on shot like this is unlikely to be as good as a more formal portrait where the subject's eyes are visible. Viewers want to see the person's character - either by seeing them 'in action' with context that supports it, or they want to see that persons eyes as a window to their soul. This photo has neither and I think that's what is missing here. I don't mean to speak for Josh but I suspect it was along the lines of his reasoning too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- You miss the point I was making though (perhaps I wasn't entirely clear though). I don't mean that this particular crop compared to the original uploaded file removed context. I mean that the wider framing and composition of a 'photojournalist style portrait' normally benefits from context to be be a useful and interesting photo. If all you want is a head shot like the above, then a side on shot like this is unlikely to be as good as a more formal portrait where the subject's eyes are visible. Viewers want to see the person's character - either by seeing them 'in action' with context that supports it, or they want to see that persons eyes as a window to their soul. This photo has neither and I think that's what is missing here. I don't mean to speak for Josh but I suspect it was along the lines of his reasoning too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is no context deleted by the crops. The original version was this and the logic of cropping it was to level out the subject and remove the awkward tilt. Unless the tilt would be acceptable in the first place? Personally I think the photo is a uniquely good capture of Corbyn's appearance: especially the natural facial expression. JJARichardson (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am saying that this one is awkward. His eyes are not visible, and neither is one side of his face. The pose (in my very-much amateur opinion) is actually quite dynamic, and so if the photograph was taken from a different angle, my opinion may be different. Featured pictures are meant to be of "professional" quality- this does not strike me as a paradigm example of professional-level portraiture or photo-journalism (but, to stress, no disrespect is meant to the photographer- this is a very valuable photo for us to have, and is of good quality- it's just not of that "next level" of quality. (There is a degree of judgement in this, meaning that reasonable people could disagree.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're saying all side view portraits are "awkward", or just this one? Why is that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per others, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Jobas (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)