Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jeremy Doyle

Jeremy Doyle
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2012 at 00:08:55 (UTC)
 * Reason:Striking, high resolution, we don't have enough pictures of Paralympians (and may not have any featured)
 * Articles in which this image appears:Jeremy Doyle
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Sport
 * Creator:Sport the Library


 * Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Would like a famous paraOlympian.  This is a recent stub.  Basically, just a guy...TCO (Reviews needed) 00:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For a player in a team sport, seems rather unfair to expect him to be individually well known to the general public (especially in a fairly rarely followed sport like wheelchair basketball); he is clearly notable as two teams he was on won gold medals. As an aside, as I said below the state of the article is not part of the criteria. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you showed him in action or something that shows his disability, it would be more encylopedic. This is just a standard posed portrait for someone that barely creeps over the bar to have a BDP.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As he died recently, we can't exactly take another one. (I'd scratch the BLP comment up there, btw; how closely did you look at the article?) Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked for length and then checked the page views tool.TCO (Reviews needed) 01:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I also agree with the above comments, but aside from that, i am also opposing on a technical standpoint. This is a very poorly taken studio image. f/5.6 For a studio shot like this is terrible, and it is clearly visible as many parts are out of focus. JFitch   (talk)  01:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What would you regard as appropriate? Portraits are usually shot at low (lower than this) apertures; Salman Khurshid down below for example is done at f/2.5. Yet Indrawati, Sri Mulyani (IMF).jpg, shot at massive f/8, was just promoted without attracting a mumble of criticism from any reviewers. FWIW it's not just about f/stops, as they're done at quite different focal lengths on different cameras so no blanket statements can be be made, but it's a place to start. I'm not necessarily arguing for this, I just wonder sometimes why some photos attract criticisms that others totally avoid. --jjron (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That first image you linked is terrible and had i seen it i would have surely opposed. The second from a technical standpoint is better, as for promotion i haven't looked into it enough to know if i'd support it. As for Apperture yes i am well aware of the effect that focal length makes. However 5.6 is extremely low, and it shows (His ears are a blur, his eyes are on the edge of the focus field, the focus falls off half way around his cheeks, and the Toyota logo on his arm which is closer than his face is in crisp focus). For the sake of numbers which is what you are asking for, I would shoot around f/16 for a studio shot like this. For a more stylised portrait shot i would open up to somewhere between f/11 and f/7.1 depending on the situation and focal length. For an example of this, take a look at the Barack_Obama lead image. JFitch   (talk)  12:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say focus is pretty much right here; yes the Toyota logo is in focus, but it's in the same plane as his face which is correctly focussed. The Obama one I don't find anything special, and they've done a bit of a cheat by moving him well away from the background to get that more blurred, rather than doing it with a shallower DOF; that's not always an option either. Even then it's still heading to the 'problems' you note here with his ears already blurring, but that's due to what I'd regard as the higher than usual focal length for such a portrait. Anyway I regard those type of portraits using high DOFs as a shotgun approach, or as someone said for the Sri Mulyani one (for different reasons), passport photos. They use a high DOF as an error protection mechanism, meaning they don't actually have to get the focus spot-on to have an acceptably focussed image. Get your lighting set-up, provide a stool or spot on the floor, use a highish DOF, then you can do these things en masse, hundreds or thousands at a time, without even having to refocus/recompose. That's one reason I question promoting any of these type of images. I'd personally prefer skilfully taken shots 'in the field' showing some genuine expression. However, as long as the consensus is that these official portraits are acceptable at FPC (and it currently clearly is the consensus, and to be frank, most articles will use them as the lead image if they're available which I guess speaks for their EV), then, as I say below, we at least need to be consistent about them. --jjron (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Article notability standards determine FP notability, rather than TCO's whims. Aperture choice is reasonable in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Loses significant enc., IMO: If it showed an action shot, with the wheelchair or a basketball, the picture would have much higher enc. Otherwise, there are not identifiable features in the picture besides the subject.  Spencer T♦ C 06:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per let's have some consistent standards. This is considerably better quality than the just promoted Sri Mulyani image; sure notability may not be as high, but per JJ notability is determined on having a suitable article, not the whims of individual reviewers at FPC. And while an action shot might be nice, we don't seem to expect photos of politicians for example to show them up in parliament or something, so what's with all the inconsistency? --jjron (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a shame there's no wheelchair/ball in shot, but he is in kit. It's also a shame TCO still feels the need to come and derail nominations with his value judgements when, as he pretty clearly admits, he hasn't even read the article. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note I've updated the caption to include that he represented Australia at an international Counter-Strike competition. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "In" or "at"? --jjron (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Sorry, fairly tired last night. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * NW. When I first read your comment I thought you were saying they based a character in the game on him. :) --jjron (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL... if so, that would just make him even more amazing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support --Muhammad (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think it's a decent image but he appears to have a corona... Can this be fixed? (Additionally, some of my pictures exhibit this behaviour, what causes it?!)  Nik the  stoned  16:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Around his head? I don't see it. Perhaps display issues from the software / hardware? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a lightening of the background around him - verified on multiple monitors and in Photoshop...  Nik the  stoned  08:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, after tilting my monitor all the way back I see it (good eyes). No idea if could be fixed, and even less idea what causes it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see it just fine, now it is mentioned. It is more visible at thumb size and caused by use of the shadow highlights tool. I don't find it objectionable in this case. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support With corona or without, this is still a high-quality image. ♫GoP♫ T C N  15:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent quality image, in action shot would be better but this still pretty good EV --Fir0002 04:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)