Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Muhammad Ali, gtfy.00140.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Muhammad Ali, gtfy.00140.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2024 at 22:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Muhammad Ali
  • I repeat: there is no such rule as "We should not crop historical images." This should be evaluated on case by case basis. And as I explain below, it is a wrong argument here. But giving real valid arguments is much more difficult than false pretexts. Yann (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have your opinion, and he has his. I don't know why that's hard for you to accept, but I'm done here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • English is not my mother tongue but I learnt at school that "should" and "must" have different meanings. Nevertheless, in any case, it's just an opinion which is expressed here. And everybody are entitled to have one. I agree with Ikan, Charles and Frank. Considering we should not alter masterpieces, or delete essential elements of a photo, or change the artist's composition, is a very valid point of view -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Frank Schulenburg: Historical images are altered all the time. They are restored, and many decisions have to be taken about colors, how much restoration should be done, etc. In addition, it doesn't make sense here because this is not scanned from a print. This is a slide, which was never printed as it is. Whoever may have printed it did alter it one way or another, at least cropping the black borders. Yann (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support: clearly superior composition compared to the original. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose This photo is the work of a famous photographer called Bernard Gotfryd. It is not Bernard Gotfryd's artwork cropped by User:Yann, it is just Bernard Gotfryd's artwork. If this photographer is famous, it's perhaps because of the competence in his sector? And there might be also a reason why the author chose to frame his subject this way? A reason why the picture has become famous this way? Empty space has immediately an impact on the viewer. It's not just a head, it's a head with the eyes looking up and a generous space above in the same direction, suggesting like an aura. Essential in the representation of Muhammad Ali. There is freedom, lead room, evoked over this head.
This iconic picture is a historical document, found in the Library and Congress. Perhaps also exposed in museums, sold in auctions, etc. An iconic photograph only contains important details, and is well-known for the special ratio immediately recognizable (3:2, 4:3, 16:9, golden ratio, or else). You don't cut Piet Mondrian abstract painting because there is too much red for your taste, and similarly you don't cut the iconic picture of a famous photographer even if you don't understand the artist's choice -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems essentially a straw-man argument. Have you even look at the source? I think I have respected the photographer's intent (no crop on the left), and only cropped the distractive element. That's what is done in every cases. And again, as I said above, this is a slide, and was never printed that way. Yann (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be featured, this picture should be able to illustrate 1) Muhammad Ali and 2) Bernard Gotfryd's work. The educational value is much higher when you can show how talented photographers compose their portraits. Moreover, the impact is more fascinating with space above, than without. And the original 3:2 ratio also has more meaning than this weird and arbitrary 1.22:1 format. There are historians who can be interested in the original document, and photographers interested in studying the author's style. Other photos by the same photographer reveal similar compositions, which suggests that this style is an integral part of the personality. Composition, like light, is not a minor element in photography, it is essential -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The crop seems like uneasy compromise between the tight edit like this and the original slide minus the borders. You can still see part of the human figure on the right and there is too much space above for a portrait photo. --Thi (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support JukoFF (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment i see know situation here similar as on En.Wiki, but there beter photo is overwriten and at least here is seperate nom. Check please there. Second picture is best by far, and Yann made mistake while talking about new big resolution while its much less detailed than on 2nd version. If doing that, Yann should not Overwrite "good" picture but do seperate nomination. JukoFF, talk, The Cosmonaut, Yann, Basile Morin, Frank Schulenburg... We must put protection on film photos, not to Overwrite them. Yann i think i will do revert there, we do no good with this. --Mile (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Petar, picture with M. Ali was not overwritten, it is here along with source TIFF, Yann uploaded retouched version as a separate file. To me, modifications are reasonable as source file is not a normal print-scan but a slide format. MZaplotnik(talk) 12:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Muhammad_Ali,_gtfy.00140.jpg&oldid=850869183"