Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A couple of face-painted humans happily gazing into each other's eyes - crop 2 (DSC03824).jpg

File:A couple of face-painted humans happily gazing into each other's eyes - crop 2 (DSC03824).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2023 at 20:45:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:A couple of face-painted humans happily gazing into each other's eyes - crop 2 (DSC03824).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A couple of face-painted humans happily gazing into each other's eyes - crop 2 (DSC03824).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
•  Info Created and nominated by Trougnouf (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment This version in full length is better in my view, if possible with a portrait format, cutting the tree at the right, and symmetrically balanced with the same space at the left. However the branch will be a bit distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

   Comment I agree that the branch on the right of the larger image is distracting, which is why I made this crop. I've tried to inpaint it but I think there are too many details to get satisfying results. (Still trying with fancier models but it's taking 5 hours to run and I don't have too much hope that it will work well.) I don't know why I prefer the legs cropped when zooming in that much, I believe that she prefers it too, and in my opinion it's better to have more space on the left because she is looking towards the left and her eye is the only one we can clearly see. What do you think? --Trougnouf (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The other version evokes a kind of Cupid & Psyche romantic painting, while this one seems awkwardly cropped to me, as if the camera was too close -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Turns out that stable diffusion is really good at inpainting and worth the 5-hours runtime... I've uploaded the least cropped version in case you or anyone would like to give it a shot, and I propose this crop as the new submission. --Trougnouf (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Support I'm dissenting from others' views: I think this is a better composition and feels more intimate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Alternative (inpainted tree; larger crop with no cutoff)

•  Info Alternative crop with inpainted tree per Basile Morin's suggestion. --Trougnouf (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Trougnouf (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Please add a {{Retouched}} template. --Yann (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. --Trougnouf (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Too much editing of original. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Beautiful, evoking mythological reminiscences, as Basile rightly stated, and certainly something fresh. I have no problem with the retouching as long as it’s declared and serves a honourable purpose. --Aristeas (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

How do you mean -honourable purpose? The picture was poorly composed; it could easily have been taken a few meters away. Should we allow that much cloning? It is a difficult area, but we run the risk of making the original composition irrelevant. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually if you look a few meters away in the uncropped version you will notice that it was in the shadows and that this spot was pretty ideal (minus a hanging dead tree). Besides, even though we spent some time in front of the tripod, we were moving and not focusing on it when the picture was taken and the emotions we felt at that moment is what I think is FP worthy. I also think that this composition works very well. Trougnouf (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Removing a background element to make an image look better for aesthetical purposes is honourable; manipulating an image in order to back up fake news (e.g. that an elephant has climbed the Eiffel tower, that Jesus Christ blessed Putin or that Biden did steal the last presidential election from Trump) is not honourable. --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Support for the alternative version. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for the alternative, I think it's much better. This staging evokes me a modern representation of artworks like Flora and Zephyr or Faun and Bacchante -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment In both versions, a fern is growing out of his head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  She put it there :) Trougnouf (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oh, that's really in his hair? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, here is a cropped picture when she installed it: File:A woman inserting fern into a man's hair (DSC03724).jpg. (Before that she was holding / wearing it.) Trougnouf (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Support UnpetitproleX (Talk) 22:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose Busy background and photographically not up to the standards of feature pictures here. Sorry, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment The scene looks somewhat strange to me. What about that piece of cloth? Is it a piece of clothing, or just meant to cover certain parts? --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• It is a piece of clothing used to cover certain parts which she is not comfortable sharing publicly. Trougnouf (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• That's exactly what it looks like, which makes the composition unnatural. Which loving couple puts some cloth around the woman's waist, while the man is properly naked? Therefore I've decided to  oppose --Palauenc05 (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• It's her decision not the couple's. She wanted some publishable pictures where no one's genitalia are visible, so she used it in some pictures and not others, I had it on in some pictures as well, we used each other too, and we have a lot of pictures which will be censored or not shared at all. I would like her to be even more comfortable with public nudity and I would especially like for society to accept it. I am happy that she is already this open. You are entitled to your clothing preferences but concluding whether two people make a loving couple based on one's clothing choices is silly. Trougnouf (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• My statement was that the scene is made up, far away from a natural situation. Thank you for calling me "silly" for that. I won't continue to discuss on that basis anymore. --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strange pieces of fabric have been a part of art for quite some time now. Just saying. --Cart (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose I have been hesitant to oppose, but after thinking it through, the compostion doesn't work for me. The background is too busy, the pose too artificial and there are too many distracting elements like the facepaint, the cloth, the fern .. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Kritzolina: it results too much artificial also for me. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Question What the hack is this? 20 upper 09:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose The details make it hard to see this is as a homage to a historical artwork, and as a modern portrait I think I'd have to agree with Kritzolina, sorry. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose she is exposed too much imho, and I don't see the wow here --Stepro (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment At first, I thought that was an objection to how much skin is showing, but I realize that you are referring to overexposure in terms of light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose JukoFF (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)