Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:SemenovaKsenia5.jpg

Ksenia Semenova
Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2011 at 16:10:40 (UTC)


 * Reason:Great portrait
 * Articles in which this image appears:Ksenia Semenova
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Sport
 * Creator:Mediacrat


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: looks more like a promotional photo than an encyclopaedic entry.. foreground is distracting, background (of alternative) is distracting, several technical issues, not FP standard. --Walkabout12 (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2011 (Aust WST)
 * Comment: I'm not concerned about it looking like a promotional photo; compositionally, this strikes me as fantastic. What I am worried about it the colouration- is it just me, or are the colours a little off? J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really an expert of photo editing, but I've tried something here. --Tomer T (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If I was supporting one, it'd be the first. I think the opinion of one of our photographers would be useful here. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you ask one of them to express their opinion here? I don't really know who to approach. Tomer T (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the middle left background of the first photo you can see how it is lit - a single shoot through umbrella with a little fill from somewhere else. The result is fairly low key, but I think the white balance is pretty close to accurate, maybe very slightly blue. The edit is much too yellow. The really weird thing though is that there is a gymnast in a completely different pose if you look at that mirror reflection full size. I'm not sure if its photo manipulation or more than one shoot was going on or if someone was just practicing in the background. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is pretty clearly just a training facility - there's at least one (it may be two) other gymnasts in the mirror; the definite one is on a balance beam, and wearing different clothes, so it's not photo manipulation, and I don't even think it's another photo shoot, just someone else practising. --jjron (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support original edit 2 only The one in which she performs a salto is a great shot, but it doesn't illustrate her face, etc. just how she is able to perform gymnastics. I agree that the new pics are better with the new coloring; it looks freshier and more attractive.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 15:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Edits Way too yellow. This exclude's jjron's which is about the best white balance I think. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not really into photo editing and the edit wasn't made with any advanced tool. I would be happy if someone more practiced than I will make another edit. Tomer T (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose original edit, alt edit and alt - As JJ says - the edits are way too warm, and the alt doesn't show her really at all. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose original and edit2 - for a posed portrait, the composition and background are below par. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit2 added. Edit1 ("Original edit") is much too warm, Original is too cold. I've tried a mild warming and levels tweak, but really the lighting on this isn't very good, amongst other issues, and I personally don't particularly support any. The original image itself is OK in terms of composition. The alts should probably just be taken down from FPC, as they're going nowhere. --jjron (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one minds, I've put these in multi-image templates for easier viewing. --jjron (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Edit2 on further consideration. There are some concerns with image quality, but in terms of overcoming systemic bias, etc, I'm willing to give a weak support. Oppose all others. (Note to closer: if this comes down to 4.5 supports, please strike the 'weak' and count this as a full support). --jjron (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Original Edit2 Good colors now, good EV and quality.  Jujutacular  talk 13:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I Support original edit2 as well. Tomer T (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2, oppose everything else. That's done it. Composition and EV are great, definitely a picture that deserves to be featured. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Darn, darn...darn! I really want to support this as we have WAY too few gymnastics shots.  And the effort to capture a personality in the top was good.  That said...I VERY ROUTINELY see shots that are much better on International Gymnast site, in gymnastics blogs, covered by photogs at big meets, etc.  This is just not up to scratch...not showing the incredible possibilities in an action shot or in a candid of one of the young females (not meant creepy like).TCO (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)  It's like doing a surfer shot or something.  The visuals can be very strong and the expectations are high.  This is just not a great shot in a genre where great shots are almost the norm.
 * And pumpkin, it is not a salto, it is a "sheep jump". A pretty decent one actually.  The point of the trick is that you have to get your feet up to head level (tipping head back is allowed and encouraged).  this is difficult because of flexiblity and also because it makes the gymnast take concentration off the beam.  however, don't really feel like the caption or use in article is supporting a discussion of these technical features.  And I can routinely find better shots on the forums and the like showing the issue of feet height. It is kind of a cool pic in terms of showing height, but somehow I still felt wanting.  note, this is a trick that Nastia (Shawn's Oly-gold theif) routinely messed up and was gifted on.  She could never get her feet up to head height.TCO (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to know! Thanks.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power[citation needed] 21:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So maybe you'll write the article Sheep jump? :) I actually tried to look for its meaning on wikipedia, but didn't find anything. Tomer T (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Google is often much better than Wiki. Images:, explanation: .  I can't find a good pic, now, but have seen them of the sheep actually jumping.  They do this weird jump in the air and kinda arch their back (I don't think they get feet to head though...)  Yeah, you could write an article on it, I guess, using the code and some books as RS's. And IG mag, I guess.  however, you really miss out on a lot of pretty decent material because we don't allow blogs (even good ones, by coaches), etc.  Really that field a lot of the activity is in forums, blogs, youtube, etc.  I think the gymnastics project was going to do an article for evey trick, but that project is dead, dead, dead.  Wiki is just not covering that sport basically (unfortuate as it is really not that obscure, has large female audience...but we are 90% male).  I did do an article on Amanar, and tried to get a photo.  No go.  Guess I could write and try to get donations, but even then, most photogs don't want to give away.  Would have to try for a snap myself.  If for some reason, we did get an FP of the sheep jump (and it does not deserve it, check out the othe pics on Google Images) then I would go ahead and write a stub to cover it.TCO (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Segueing, a little. Think about how bad our videos are.  (I can't even watch most, as I have that obscure browser Internet Explorer...ya know the majority share browser...most of our readers use it also.)  Here is what someone can find on Youtube, so easily.  .  It really is a stunning acheivement, as well as capturing the biomechanical explanation well...and then the human interaction is compelling as well (performer, audience, even Chris Brooks laughing at the end).  Someone can find these sort of gems on Youtube.  how many videos do we have like that?  TCO (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)