Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg

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

File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2015 at 18:12:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Queen Elizabeth II, now the longest-reigning monarch in British history, shown in a U.K. Ministry of Defence photo in March 2015
I'm sorry, but the only conclusion I can make is that you are all having a laugh. The alternative is to assume you are serious about this nomination, which would reflect very badly on your judgement skills. -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we knew: Colin only accepts free Beer Images with exorbitant resolutions. The quality does not matter for him. --Ralf Roleček 21:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: and @Ralf Roletschek: please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User_problems#Civility issue on Featured picture candidates. I will let an uninvolved administrator take a look at this. --Pine✉ 21:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Excellent photo for me -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose JPEG artifacts, too shallow DOF (see brooch & necklace), ... -- KTC (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose With all due respect to Her Majesty the Royal subject (of the picture), I see here strong compression artifacts, too short DoF, tight lateral crops and I miss the rest of feathers of the hat. As everybody in the world, I like the famous smile, and the colors are vivid enough, but this is not FP. --Jebulon (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)🇫🇷[reply]
  •  Oppose Is FPC now the place to nominate images, that could not make it in QIC? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Sorry, I completely agree with Colin and other opposers. This is a terrible portrait. The lighting isn't good (the shadows have clearly been brightened/fill flashed but this is not a substitute for proper good lighting). The image quality is terrible. It's low resolution (yes it's 2MP but that's usually a bare minimum where other mitigating factors are at play). It's not sharp at that resolution. The framing is much too tight. IMO there are no redeeming features of this portrait, except perhaps as Jebulon says, her signature smile and that's not enough in itself. Diliff (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Violently strong oppose Colin and Diliff were so convincing in their arguments I almost decided to not blow it up to full-res. But, I decided to be honest and do it anyway. Now I wish I'd blown the image up, literally ... you just can't unsee that much noise. This isn't even good enough for government work—if we still lived in a time when people could be drawn and quartered or whatever for insulting the sovereign sufficiently, Mr. Rouse would be in pieces. Literally.

    Oh, and the crop's kinda tight there, too. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Daniel Case, Mr Rouse doesn't deserve to be drawn and quartered. The original is a bit oversaturated and colour balance may be off, but it's a snapshot of a famous person at an event so in that case it is what it is (consider, 200mm, ISO 3,200 and f2.8 the DoF is so shallow that he/camera did a really good job of getting her in focus). It's a usable picture at thumbnail, which is what many people need. She's wearing stage makup that looks ok at a distance but isn't how one would be made to look for a portrait, which this isn't. The real crime is the the amateur editing (and edit war) to this JPG that has resulted in it being saved at the lowest JPG quality, and that some reviewers failed to spot this. It's such an easy spot and so easy to fix (revert back far enough, and then perhaps ask someone with skill and good software to redo any edits necessary) that Pine, et al should be ashamed. If that basic step had been done, that simple matter of taking some care to review the image properly before nominating, then we'd just be having a straightforward FPC about lighting, noise and how difficult it is to capture good photos of people at a distance. Rather than asking me to "respect" an opinion made through such carelessness, I expect nominators to respect both their fellow reviewers and the photographers who have had their far better images declined -- and spend some effort prior to nomination. -- Colin (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the photographer did an okay job to get her face in focus in what was probably difficult photographic circumstances, but even the original uploaded file has much the same issues as all those that followed it in the edit war. It was already very poor due to having used ISO 3200. The editors later making change after change with strong compression and noise reduction actually had relatively little effect on the image quality. The artifacts were mostly already there in the image - they were simply enhanced by removing the noise and brightening it. I suppose the photographer never intended for an image like this to be analysed at 100% by pixel peepers and fair enough, but it is still a poor portrait simply because of the lighting. It might be the best image that the photographer was likely to take at this event on this specific day, and for an event photographer, that's probably all that could be expected of him. But to be the best portrait the government has published of the Queen with an Open Government Licence? I find that hard to believe. Diliff (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sensing that this photo is going to be rather polarizing in terms of who likes it and who doesn't, I predict that it's headed toward "no consensus", and therefore  I withdraw my nomination of it. I appreciate those who expressed their views in respectful terms. --Pine✉ 02:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Queen_Elizabeth_II_March_2015.jpg&oldid=172643009"