Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kostas Martakis

Kostas Martakis

 * Reason:Sorry if people are getting sick of these nominations, but I love images submitted by representatives of the subject. After this (viewable only by OTRS volunteers) rather exciting email, we may now be getting a large number of high quality images from Universal Music Greece, which is great news. See also this great image, also of Martakis. The nominated image is a professional quality headshot, very typical of a publicity shot in terms of composition, that shows the subject in a very compelling way. Note that it is also the basis of an album cover. Technically sound, and certainly makes the viewer want to know more!
 * Articles this image appears in:Kostas Martakis, Head_shot
 * Creator:Universal Music Greece


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Excessive digital manipulation. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that at first, but after some Googling, it seems his eyes are actually that colour. J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * His eye color is completely different in the other image, and I think I can see traces of cloning, but the artificial eyes are enough for me to oppose. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't fake. I think the eye colour is also perfectly natural, going on . It is just a question of lighting. Look closely at the reflections in his eyes. There is one softbox top and slightly right (top square) and another smaller one below and a bit right too. The net effect is a fairly shadowless image, it reminds me of a ring light. I can't speak for cloning, but the light source is very soft, and he probably has makeup on. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really can't say with certainty, but if I had to make a call, I would say it is extremely soft and warm (yellow spectrum) lighting being used which creates enhanced bluishness. Just look at his ears, which are not made up, and there is no reason to digitally manipulate. But I can't rule it out, and I am no expert on these matters. On the basis of the other photos in the article, his eyes are a slightly greener shade than this. I looked at other images on the internet and they seem to bear this out (although most were not such close ups, excepting thisWhat makes his eyes look more fake is that his entire face is heavily made up. Take a close look at the image, and you'll see tonnes of foundation. It hides a nice character scar under his eye, unfortunately.For a pop entertainer like Martakis, makeup is not really a problem as far as I'm concerned. But deliberate manipulation to create an unrealistic effect is. I have too many concerns to support this image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral I love celeb shots as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty sure those eyes are fake. Google-ing him all the advertisements with him and such have him with those eyes, but more casual shots like this show something more normal. I would guess he gets them made up to make better man-candy for ads/promotions. And yes, I would say that's the first time anyone has ever written "man-candy" in an FPC vote. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to neutral because I respect Durova's opinion. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Staxringold. And I know 14 year old boys that can grow a better beard.  Cacophony (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The amount of digital manipulation is appropriate for the genre. Quite a good example of its type.  If we ever manage to get a George Hurrell in the public domain I'd promote it in a heartbeat; Hurrell's portraits were heavily and masterfully retouched.  Let's exercise appropriate discretion per the subject matter in our application of FP criteria.  Durova  320 05:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have added the portrait to Head_shot, which (amazingly) was an article that had no illustration at all. One would expect that aspiring entertainers would be elbowing each other for space on that page.  Kudos to Mr. Martakis for understanding free culture.  Durova  320 22:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Noodle snacks about the lighting and Durova --Muhammad (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: I have to agree with Durova. This is his image, this is what he sells.  This is what is plastered on the front of thousands of his albums.  In that context, this is the encyclopaedic image, not a candid shot of him showing his eyes are much darker or greener.  For the genre and for his Greek music star persona, it's an excellent example.   Mae din \talk 08:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Durova and Maedin have convinced me of the encyclopedic value of this image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Durova and Maedin. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment All that the supporters here have said is frankly rubbish as long as the manipulation of the photograph is not acknowledged in image captions, which it currently isn't. Newspapers voluntarily adopted a standard to not let image manipulation go uncommented, and the more serious ones do, in fact, largely exclude it from their reporting. I really feel we'd be falling well short of widely adopted standards of honesty in featuring an image without giving the reader the opportunity to understand that what he or she is looking at is an illusion created by a designer - it's on the same level as the recent debate about how using photoshopped (usually female) models in advertising encourages eating disorders and may yet come to be outlawed in some countries. Relevant recent and not-so-recent news coverage:   Our own criteria here at FPC explicitly include the phrase "not deceptive". The criteria allow for "color correction" but not augmentation. For me, there's never been a clearer case that an image should be rejected. And if you're worried that the Universal Music Greece stream of images will come to a halt if this doesn't get promoted, you should never have nominated it. In my opinion, such political motives should never affect the rationality of our decisions: Have we become so un-free as to start pandering to commercial interests? Are we so quick to abandon the free content mission? Wake-up call, over and out.  Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What the Hell are you talking about? You do speak some crap. First of all, we aren't unanimous about whether this has been modified, and, secondly, no one is allowing "political motives ... affect the rationality of our decisions". I'm not even sure if the uploader or the person who contacted me from Universal Music Greece are aware of this discussion- I didn't tell them. I nominated this because I think it is a high quality image, of a type underrepresented on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that if this is accepted, and if this has been modified, the caption needs to say so. —Darxus (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The only political motives that appear to be visible here are those of the individual who makes accusations of "pandering to commercial interests". If the business community perceives advantages to free licenses, why shouldn't their submissions merit an equal footing with everything else?  When US Government public domain material gets nominated we don't "pander" to a federal bureaucracy; we review content.  Durova  320 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We have criteria (link), which remain as clear as before on the matter of color-manipulated images. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Mainly for its use in Head shot. Not a fan of heavily photoshopped images for biography articles. Kaldari (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)