Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chris Hadfield

Chris Hadfield
Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2013 at 08:05:44 (UTC)
 * Reason:High resolution, good EV, fairly good quality from what I can see
 * Articles in which this image appears:Chris Hadfield
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:Robert Markowitz of NASA


 * Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Criteria 1 (Compression artifacts are clearly visible). What is the point in taking a studio photograph with a Hasselblad in 2011 and then applying 97% compression on it, resulting in a 0.7MB filesize (about 5-10x too small). If NASA want to over-compress images on their website that's up to them, but they should make available high-quality versions for download. This isn't acceptable quality for publication or FP. Colin°Talk 11:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I have looked over this image and I do not see the compression artifacts mentioned above.  What I CAN see, however, is every single hair on this guy's head as well as the individual pores on his neck and even the minute capillaries running under the skin of his cheeks under his eyes (check it out-- capillaries).  The image is 2400 by 3000 pixels and is a 300 dpi rendering of an 8x10 portrait.  The file is "only" 696KB in size, but the image appears to be well within specifications with regard to size and quality, and I do not see the "obvious" compression artifacts (please point some out for me if you would so I can get a better handle on them).  Otherwise, this is an image of almost embarrassing personal detail.  I feel like I kissed him after I was done looking at the image up close...  And he's SO not my type! KDS444 (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is hard to notice what you're missing. You really can't see "every single hair on this guy's head". What you see is a general impression of hair, with some stragglers. Look closely at the hair and you'll see the 8x8 matrix of the JPG, something that absolutely shouldn't be visible if the JPG is saved with any reasonable level of compression. The camera that took this picture is medium format and the output was likely between 22 and 50MP. This is 7MP and 0.7MB so Nasa aren't releasing anything close to the picture that was taken. Which they should really because that work is in the public domain. IMO we should stop featuring these "compressed for web" images and request a higher quality version from NASA -- any print publisher would do, because this image isn't fit for print. Colin°Talk 07:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I also see the compression issues, especially in the bottom red section of the flag, but also where the man's undershirt meets the inside of his suit and in spots all over the background.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  13:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose No compression artifacts please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechFilmer (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose A cliched-since-Mercury-era astronaut pose by awkward, shiny astronaut. As an example of Fake Smiles In Photos, it would do very well but not as an FP. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 08:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)