Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eileen Collins photographed by Annie Leibovitz as part of the NASA Art Program.jpg

File:Eileen Collins photographed by Annie Leibovitz as part of the NASA Art Program.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2014 at 01:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Eileen Collins photographed by Annie Leibovitz as part of the NASA Art Program.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eileen Collins photographed by Annie Leibovitz as part of the NASA Art Program.jpg

Annie Leibovitz photographed Eileen Collins as part of the NASA Art Program at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, during training.

•  Info created by - uploaded by Mrjohncummings - nominated by Mrjohncummings -- Mrjohncummings (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mrjohncummings (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose underexposed, distracting shadows. Far away to be featured for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Either dawn or dusk, so exposure is correct. Love the atmosphere. Kleuske (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Great image, and of historic significance. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support - Very good image of a culturally significant person taken by a culturally significant photographer. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support although the horizon isn't perfect... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Support per Andy Mabbett. ArionEstar (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alchemist, + crop too tight above and below.--Jebulon (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alchemist, shadows are too much of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Sure, Annie Leibovitz can't handle exposure; should stick to "auto" :-). Come guys, you make fools of us. Nasa usually give us this sort of bland studio portrait and now we get real art and we can't spot it. Per Kleuske, the lighting is fantastic. She jumps out the screen in her red uniform and the eye is instantly drawn to her no-nonsense face. No wonder Nasa chose this image to publicise an exhibition of their Art program. -- Colin (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment That Annie Leibovitz took it does not give the image a pass here. Yes, she is famously talented. But even extremely talented artists make crap sometimes. Are "Do You Want to Know a Secret" and "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)" towering achievements in popular music because the Beatles recorded them? Is Topaz a classic film because it was directed by Alfred Hitchcock? Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • You miss the point (though the photographer is famous enough for us to consider this work in the "Artwork" category to be honest). You agree with Alchemist that Leibovitz underexposed this picture? Are you now saying this is "crap"? -- Colin (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I hesitated, Colin convinced me -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Colin's arguments let my cold like a piece if ice. I don't care about who is Anne Leibovitz, with all due respect. "You make fool of us" is not acceptable. I have the right to dislike the work of a sacred cow, and I have the right to write my disagreement here. To me, this picture is full of flaws, regarding our usual criteria. Thank you and happy new year.--Jebulon (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • +1. Agree full to Jebulon. A happy new year for all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    • If the Internet makes you brave enough to ridicule a pro portrait photographer for not being able to expose or crop her pictures properly, then you should have thick enough skin to take what reaction you get. Yes you are more than entitled to your opinion and to stand by it. I agree there are no sacred cows and even pros take bad or mediocre pictures at times. Review, discuss, challenge, think. If you just want to vote and run away, then the unwatch button is up the top-right. And, yes, a happy new year to you to! :-) Colin (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I did not ridicule anybody nor anything. Are you suggesting I am a coward ? I'm afraid you are going a bit too far, dude. If the Internet makes you brave enough to (try to, without any success) ridicule me as an amateur photographer, feel free. No offense: I am an amateur photographer. (Not exactly the same meaning in french, less pejorative). If you are soooo politicaly correct to think that any work, because of made by a well known photographer, is obviously good, feel free too. I agree: think. Your first comment, dear Colin, made me have a strong reaction because you say, in other words: 1) this picture is good, because of made by Anne Leibovitz, therefore, shut up. 2) who are you, poor insect, to contest the Nasa choice for its Art program. And you suggest me to "think" ? "Think" yourself too, by yourself. And many thanks for your wishes.--Jebulon (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Jebulon, I haven't said anything about "amateur photographer" (that's Kleuske below), and your points 1 and 2 are not what I said at all. There is a difference between commenting on a work to say what you like and dislike, and commenting to say the photographer made a basic technical mistake like "underexposed". You might not like the lighting effect here, and you may hate it enough to oppose based on your own tastes, but you claim Anne Leibovitz, one of the worlds top portrait photographers has made a basic mistake. And also, when picking the which image to use from her shots, she picked the faulty one. And then NASA chose to exhibit this faulty photo and to lead with it in their publicity. This is all too much. I suggest you stop digging and consider the oppose was badly worded. By all means say it is too dark for you or that you don't like the lighting effect, but please, "underexposed"? -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
      • As for me, I think that I've nothing more to say. I've given my opinion, arguments and vote, and have nothing to change. I think it is time for an EoD, sorry--Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
        • It may be time for a DR, sadly, as the copyright status of the image has been questioned. -- Colin (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
          • I didn't see any DR? Jee 07:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
            • See Village Pump "NASA art program" -- Colin (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
              • Hmm; I noticed that discussion earlier, but didn't notice the "update" by Russavia. Something wrong as I doubted below. Jee 14:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
                • I'd be sorry if this picture should be deleted, even if I voted "oppose" here. But I'm afraid...--Jebulon (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I just looked at the image, which struck me as brilliant, the fact that it's Leibowitz escaped me. Lemmesee... Internationally acclaimed photographer on the one hand, amateur photographer and Commons regular on the other... Now who am going to take seriously on this... Kleuske (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"She jumps out the screen in her red uniform" - except its orange and you should be able to tell that from the photo. Rmhermen (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. Sorry, I do agree with Colin on this one. This is far more interesting than the bland portraits they usually take. This is an artistic portrait and you can tell that it isn't accidental that the photo is 'underexposed' in parts. Targeted lighting is a completely legitimate method and I think it's been executed very well in this case - the only question is whether you like it or not. As with any art, we're all entitled to make our own mind up about that, but the photo does not contain major flaws in any objective sense. Diliff (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I checked the file history, visits the source pages several times. Personally I don't like full body portrait; so prefer a half body one similar (but a bit more generous crop on bottom) to one in Flickr. But showing the full costumes may have more EV.

Does PD NASA overrides non commercial restriction imposed at http://www.si.edu/termsofuse/ ? Jee 03:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The "half body" is just a crop someone made. The actual portrait has the same vertical size but is actually a bit wider. See this photo of it. It is interesting the white balance appears different in that photo and the colours more saturated -- but it is hard to tell what is right. Another photo from that set has Collins with her helmet off and two examples here and here look different to this. I prefer a less sickly coloured sky. -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Support - Notable work by a noted artist with historic significance. Targeted lighting to feature the upper body and face works great as a deliberate style, even if it's not to everyone's taste. -- KTC (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support ack KTC. --Sputniktilt (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Perfetto! --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 9:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 10:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment This image is now at DR here. russavia (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: no image available - Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.