Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983

Jesse Jackson 1983
Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 00:00:36 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is an encyclopedic image with high EV throughout the project. The image is used broadly on wikipedia in two versions as depicted herewith.  This nomination is about the uncropped version.  If it passes or fails, I may still nominate the cropped version as a WP:VPICS.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Jesse Jackson presidential campaign, 1988 Jesse Jackson presidential campaign, 1984 Jesse Jackson Rainbow/PUSH Jesse Jackson, Jr. Omega Psi Phi Civil rights movement Bradley effect South Side (Chicago) North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University 1988 Democratic National Convention Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2000
 * FP category for this image:people
 * Creator:Warren K. Leffler, U.S. News & World Report


 * Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question Which image is being nominated? File:Jesse Jackson, half-length portrait of Jackson seated at a table, July 1, 1983.jpg? If so the other image is unnecessary and causing confusion, I recommend deleting the box with two images and links... — raeky ( talk 02:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This probably best belongs being considered at WP:VPC as it clearly “adds significantly to articles” it is in. Here, there is a high standard for excellence as regards technical quality. I think this image has excellent lighting and contrast range. However, I find that this is not “of a high technical standard”. The 3200 pixel width is clearly oversampled as film grain can be seen even at one-quarter that resolution. Though it could be photoshopped very easily, the hair on the original negative doesn’t help. Among gray-scale images, I can’t see how this can be considered as being “among Wikipedia's best work”. Greg L (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support I think this image easily checks the boxes for indoor no-flash 35mm photography, though it is currently oversampled. Pending a down sample (and hopefully a removal of the hair) I would support this. Cowtowner (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is a down sample?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Less digital resolution so it is appropriate given the film grain. Greg L (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a GIMP newbie, I am not sure if that is within my powers. Plus, I certainly wouldn't know how to remove a hair, even if I could see it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see the hair now on his open hand, but am powerless to fix it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We have Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop... — raeky ( talk 07:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally can't see any hair in his open hand - to me tthe hair cowtowner is refering to is the above his right shoulder above his ear level... Gazhiley (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that was his jacket cuff in the background. I don't see anything at ear level.  I see a white scratch or hair near the top of his hairline level.  Does this nomination need to be suspended for the graphics lab request?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit I have submitted an edit removing the scratch or whatever it was. The big problem with the image is actually the motion blur of his hand.  You may wish to consider this FP of Saddam Hussein, where the picture's EV won out over the technical flaw.  While Jackson is still alive, unlike Hussein, this picture was taken when he was younger and, I would say, much more relevant than he is now - so it can't be replaced by a more recent image of higher quality. The downsample was to 75%, where it is still grainy, but I thought it better to err on the side of too much resolution than too little. I can provide the edit at full resolution if people find downsampling objectionable.  Fletcher (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your technical assistance. Did you also correct the other version that is also widely used on WP?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done so now and have uploaded a version to commons. Hope that works ok. Fletcher (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit. Good portrait, good EV, and the quality isn't bad. Nautica Shad es  11:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit This photo really brings out the personality of the subject. I actually like the blurriness of the hand because it indicates motion (or seems to, maybe it's a depth of field issue). Can the graininess of the original photo be smoothed out more? It very noticeable when viewed at full resolution. In general, candid shots should be encouraged here.--RDBury (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Question If the edited version passes, is ther a protocol for replacing the image in articles?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the SOP is the closer does the replacement... — raeky ( talk 14:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit Excellent photo which easily meets the criteria Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A 1.35MB edit of a 30MB TIFF?  It doesn't happen every day that we get an original resolution that good; no reason to waste it.  Also, quite a number of dust marks were missed and nothing was done to correct for fade.  Durova  412 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The "original" in this case is photographic film. You can scan it to create whatever size TIFF you want but the film only captured so much information so at a certain point higher resolution gives you nothing but individual grains in the film emulsion. If the photo was a long exposure in bright light of a still subject in perfect focus then there might be 30 megs of information, but in this case there is 1 meg of information and 29 megs of noise. Not that I have any issues with the photographic quality, we don't need Ansel Adams here, but you shouldn't oppose the nomination based on file size.--RDBury (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose While the quality of the original/edit are disputed, the EV is lacking. Considering the subject, the context of the image seems generic. Nothing in the image by itself says much about the subject and the long list of reasons he is worth reading about. Afrazn Beauti (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually an excellent piece of photojournalism: the eyes and hands are very expressive. If the original weren't downsampled so badly I'd support an unedited version for FP.  Durova  412 04:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the noise is induced by downsampling, rather than being an artifact of high film grain? I might reconsider if you could clarify. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit, per Fletcher. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  T · C 08:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)