Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait photo.jpg

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

File:Portrait photo.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 00:24:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: bad quality, mostly just blown white and crushed black. Commons/Wikipedia isn't for showing off self-portrait your and slotting it into various articles it doesn't really fit (I've removed most of them). -- Colin (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] 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.
Many thanks for your vote, but i think you're not portrait photographer, this method of lighting is common in portrait photography and as i said in photo note here Overexposure not weakness, for example you can see too many of similay works in this photographers list: Annie Leibovitz, Richard Avedon, Sally Mann, Michael Muller, Irving Penn, David Bailey, Angus McBean, Helmut Newton, Cecil Beaton, Jason Bell , Marco Grob, Mark Seliger, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswaran (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
Aswaran, I'm quite well read in portrait photography. This image is a mix of lighting choices and post-processing, and it is the latter I'm most objecting to. You've just applied some high contrast filter and while there can be artistic values in creating such an extreme image (close to some dark comic images) it greatly reduces its utility unless one wants to demonstrate extreme filters. I have to say, I don't find the result flattering at all, particularly the pores on the nose. You don't link to photos from these other photographers, so a long list of famous names doesn't help the argument. But to pick one thumbnail from the list you supply, is a beautiful portrait created 100 years ago and doesn't have the problems this image displays. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: , i uploaded original image, please chck it again, Aswaran (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a different image to what you originally uploaded. Still seems over exposed and the distant eye not quite lit enough per Rembrandt lighting for example. But we're not really here to give portrait photography criticism, or to keep offering different images. For a portrait photo of a non-notable person, it would really have to be quite an amazing image to achieve FP. This still has technical flaws imo, and is far too closely cropped. -- Colin (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: yes, even i don't like to anybody know my real name, in my talk page in wikipedia we talked about notable works and suitable works, in 99% i don't use wikipedia, my encyclopedia is britannica and i see a larg count if it's media not notable or newlly photographed, the crop is with diagonal method, golden triangle and rule of thirds, also in front of image is a little space as Lead room, my profession is CG lighting and this is my favorite lighting pattern, also i saw this in too many photographs of notable photographers too, i know it's not normal portrait because normal portraits use softlight and overexposure is a technical problem, i have original image too, i just used lead room but if image problem is crop i can fix it?, also i removed FPX of you and if you and other members advice my and i think this portrait is't helpfull for wikipedia i request for delete it from servers.Aswaran (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Portrait_photo.jpg&oldid=549685612"