Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/David

David by Michelangelo

 * Reason:EV is high; clear and technically fine image
 * Articles this image appears in:Florence, Michelangelo, David and Piazza della Signoria
 * Creator:Massimo Catarinella


 * Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Statue is darker than the background, and the background is too distracting. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be defensive but....this still is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. The walls of the Palazzo Vecchio should be the background of this picture and the only way to get a frontal shot of the statue is by including the building in the background. You shouldn't twist and bent reality, just to get a prettier picture. I could easily make the background black, but that isn't real. As fore the shadow. It isn't overtly distraction and doesn't obscure details. A collage of the friezes of the Albert Memorial by Diliff just got promoted (nice picture btw) and two of those friezes are also in the shade. Despite this it still got promoted. I more and more get the feeling that there is a huge bias on Wikipedia FPC towards some photographers. If a image belongs to Diliff or Noodle Snacks (both great photographers btw!) for example, they instantly get promoted. I've seen enough great encyclopedic images over the time by other photographers, which got rejected by the most ridiculous of reasons. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You've contributed fine, quality work, which gets recognized. Reasonable people can differ about a particular image.  Spikebrennan (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The remark wasn't specifically about this picture or me for that matter, but it is just a feeling I get at FPC lately. I meant no disrespect toward anyones opinion and I made the remark to get people to think. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: as can be seen here, at approximately midday (judged by the high sun almost directly South), the statue is mostly in shade. Could another photo not be taken at a different time of day, or on a day with less direct sunlight, to get the necessary lighting effect? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, this is a photo of a copy of the statue, not a photo of the famous statue itself, so EV is lacking.  Second, the lighting makes it look like this is an illustration of the wall behind the statue, rather than of the statue itself.  Spikebrennan (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose the background should have the dim lighting with the subject well lit. A much smaller DOF would also be preferable.  Highly reproducible shots like this should be better technically.  Cacophony (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: As this is a copy of the statue, in the original location, my view on this is that it should be showing the location itself . . . the square, the nearby buildings, etc. I would happily support a quality photograph which didn't necessarily have the focus on the statue but on its surroundings.  Otherwise, I'm afraid, this is just a picture of the copy, and photographs of the original are not yet impossible to obtain.   Mae din \talk 18:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)