Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Salman Khurshid portrait.jpg

Salman Khurshid
Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2012 at 17:09:38 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality, light, isolation and EV. The first and only picture of him on wiki. We have few FPs of politicians from countries apart from the US and I doubt any from India.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Salman Khurshid, Jan Lokpal Bill, Cabinet of India
 * Creator:Muhammad Mahdi Karim


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support -- I'm less than keen on the pose. Is he known for being somewhat stiff? Such a portrait of Barack Obama, for example, would probably have low EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, the glasses reflections have been managed well. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to diminish author's merit (the portrait is nice) but as far as I remember, glasses have anti reflection coating, so I don't see what had to be managed here. - Blieusong (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't in general, though one might expect a politician to own a pair that do. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This one pair does for sure, because of the greenish reflections. - Blieusong (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * TO be honest, I didn't do anything to handle the reflections :-) Benh, if the portrait is nice, a support would be welcome ;-) --Muhammad (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Something like that? support. I like the background also by the way. - Blieusong (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Strikingly looks like Jean-Pierre Raffarin (ex French prime minister that most over here won't know I'm pretty sure ;) ). - Blieusong (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, good portrait. EV of a portrait kinda is what it is, unless it's a continually photographed subject like (per Crisco's comment) Obama. Chick Bowen 04:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose nice and well, but a simply boring and not featurable centered composition for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Until we have more/better pictures of people, I have to try to push this stuff.  I am skeptical, generally, of the argument for en-Wiki to be more multicultural (we cover what our readers care about), but this article gets 7000+ views per month (notable).TCO (Reviews needed) 15:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This is a terrible example of a 'portrait'. It's very snapshotty, (ISO800 should not be needed! and teh DOF is too shallow, focus falloff around the face and no reason to as there is nothing to put out of focus in the background) there has been no real thought put into the image. The disturbing refelections on the glasses should have been dealt with. His glasses aren't even on straight, his tie is crooked, many many issues here. JFitch   (talk)  16:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An image should not be judged by its metadata. If discernible noise is present then you may cite high ISO. Regarding the glasses and tie, this was not an official photograph taken in a studio. The minister was to take pictures with some other VIPs and I had just a few seconds from when the minister sat till when the others sat in a somewhat dark area. Regarding your comment on being a terrible portrait, I showed the image to numerous people all of who praised it as one of the best they had seen. The comments from photographers like JJ and Benh strengthen my argument --Muhammad (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, especially considering the conditions (and that explains his disgruntled look too). Since India has Crown Copyright, his official portrait won't be free until all of us are very old men and women. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And thats fine. I'm judging by featured picture standards here. You may well have the best possible picture for the circumstances, however if those circumstances didn't allow for a good enough portrait then it doesn't matter, and shouldn't be featured. The metadata is clear in what is being seen. It IS noisey, however the effect has been greatly reduced by a large amount of downsampling to make the image smaller. (It's not even a quarter of the size that the taken image would have been at). And The focus issues I noticed instantly. JFitch   (talk)  13:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - by Alchemist. P. S. Burton  (talk)  18:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Ahirwav (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)