Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Vinton Cerf-20070512.jpg

Image:Vinton Cerf-20070512.jpg - not featured

•  Info created by Joi Ito (Wikipedia User:Joi) - uploaded and nominated by User:Susanlesch --Susanlesch 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Susanlesch 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral Huh, an image taken with a Leica M8. In any case, while the file size is high on this image, the quality does not appear so high. The image looks to be dithered or is that just some strange effect from the camera itself? Maybe it was upsampled. Or perhaps it's just noise reduction. It almost looks like a scan from some print source. I'm not sure what to do with this one. It look like a very nice B&W portrait, but my evaluation criteria are not helping me on this one. Update: Perhaps it's because I like B&W portraits so much (and the composition) and because of it being of a famous, iconic person. Nevertheless, I'm still torn because of the low quality. -- Ram-Man 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  •  Support. Call me insane, crazy, whatever, but I think the focus on technical quality is ignoring what is really important: the content. The subject matter is exceptional. From the comments below, it seems this image was severely underexposed resulting in lousy quality. Lousy quality didn't, however, mask over the vision which is more important to photography than quality, thus a sufficient mitigating reason to support. -- Ram-Man 15:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Info Hi. Photo was taken in person. No it is not a scan. Yes the 6.3MB size is odd and looks like an enlargement. Would it be better to revert to the first, smaller upload? Done. Please see what you think of the 296,750 bytes size. -Susanlesch 17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The enlarged version is poor quality; the smaller version better quality, but too small. Majorly (hot!) 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition - almost half of mans head is missing. --Karelj 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose I really like the mood, intensity of expression and how the subject is separated from the background with shallow DOF. However, I really, really wonder about the quality. With 6+ MP, as the original was, the image should have been razor sharp, easily showing about each and every thread of subjects jacket, each and every hair of beard and pore of the skin. Unfortunately this is nowhere near of what could and should have been. I can only wonder if there has been some kind of major, devastating, post processing failure and if the original could be reprosessed and uploaded? Or was the original simply a radical and upsised crop of larger image (which I do not believe to be the case, considering the shallow DOF)? In its current form it is far too small to be FP. --Thermos 17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support because of the subject matter, and only because of the subject matter. Strongly agree with Thermos et al, would be really good if the above faults can be addressed. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Question. The uploaded photo looks like a crop. Has anyone contacted Joi and asked for the original yet? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Info. Ben, after reading Thermos's evaluation above, yes I did contact the photographer who tried three other versions last night. But his first try above seems to be the best that can be done. The original is very dark, and what we have above is reduced to B&W. I apologize for nominating despite the size and technical failings and appreciate the tough standards you have here. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• The nomination was a good one, and there is no need for an apology. Certain images become icons because they are taken by a certain photographer, or they speak to people in a certain way, or they are of a certain special content, or a combination of these things. The content of this image is FP-worthy and it is clear the despite its technical failings that it has some support anyway. That says something. -- Ram-Man 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ack Ram-Man. I would certainly appreciate if this kind of images were nominated more frequently. However, what I said in my post, still stands. If it were about nominations based on thumbnails, this image would have my vote. However, the image should be printable/viewable at larger sizes too, which this image is not. What I would like to suggest, is that you submit the original non-processed image to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab

or:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bilderwerkstatt

...and ask for some contribution. The French wikipedia should also be able to assist, but due to lack of my language skills, I do not know for sure (I understand that the French lab is the original and very skillful). With more than 6 MP, it should make a stunning image when properly processed.--Thermos 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 Info Sorry I didn't chime in before. As Susanlesch says, the problem with this photo was that it was taken in VERY low light and hand-held. The PDP-1 display required a very dark room. It was even too dark to focus very well. I'm not sure why the higher quality image from Flickr didn't come over properly. If you view the largest size from Flickr in a Firefox window and let it resize, the thumbnail created by Firefox is better than the converted jpg thumbnail here. (Larger jpg on Flickr: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/494396202_9193d2f83a_o.jpg ) Also, I have uploaded the M8 RAW as well as several different jpg exports here: http://dav.ito.com/vint/ . I'll try to get more involved in the Commons stuff directly in the future. ;-) Anyway, despite all of the technical issues with this photo, I appreciate your attention to it. Thanks Susanlesch for the nomination. -- Joi 08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Even if no improved version gets to be uploaded --Javier ME 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 4 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)