Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leaving courthouse on first day of gay marriage in Washington

Leaving courthouse on first day of gay marriage in Washington
Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2013 at 21:47:00 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is a good illustration of a historic news event, the promenade outside Seattle's city hall on the first day of same-sex marriage in Washington state. The photo expresses the mood of the impromptu celebration, and the overcast, rainy weather the crowd endured. It does push the bounds of Featured Image quality because of the use of short depth of field to blur the foreground, but this image was chosen specifically because the faces of the two couples on the stairs are obscured enough that they aren't easily identifiable. There is sufficient clarity to see that the couples are same-sex. This is out of an abundance of respect for the principles of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, to not unnecessarily publicize the identities of private individuals, and because anonymity helps focus attention to the event and not individuals. A photo of famous people at this event (e.g. File:Dan Savage marriage at City Hall with Mike McGinn.jpg) would be a distraction in the articles Same-sex marriage in Washington State and Washington Referendum 74. For comparison, a large number of CC-by-SA images are at Married in Seattle such as . Professional copyrighted image galleries of the event are at Seattle Times and Seattle P-I.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Same-sex marriage in Washington State and Washington Referendum 74
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Culture and lifestyle
 * Creator:Dennis Bratland


 * Support as nominator --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Irrevocable Oppose There's something really wrong with this picture. It looks like a photo of a photo, and I went to your Commons talk page and you have apparently been violating copyright by making derivative photos-of-photos. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 05:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Are you just not used to seeing film photos? I took this with a Leica CL and Kodak Ektar 100. You're right that there's a great many photos on Commons taken with the same equipment. If you are serious about this absurd accusation, I'd be happy to show the negatives to any Seattle Wikipedians I see regularly, such as or . Is this a joke? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dennis wrote me to ask me to comment. Keraunoscopia, this is a ridiculous accusation. I've been out shooting photos with Dennis and, yes, he shoots film, which does produce somewhat different images than digital photography. I'd prefer if you just withdraw the accusation, but if you really insist, since I live in the same city as Dennis, I can arrange to get together with him, and he can show me the relevant negatives for this and any specific other images where you have this concern. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 16:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Coming to the party late, but I'm willing to do the necessary to validate the image. I know Dennis personally and am sure this is legit. Brianhe (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Abstain No, this is entirely on me. Maybe I've been staring at digital photographs for too long; I'd actually written an oppose already before I decided I needed to look at your talk page; then I replaced my comments entirely because it seemed to "make sense", so I not only jumped the gun, but I unfairly accused you in the open before even discussing it with you on your en-wiki talk page first. My greatest apologies, and I'm sorry for the accusation. Therefore, I will revoke my "irrevocable" oppose (I really thought I was looking at a photo of a photo, I'm so sorry) and will abstain from !voting completely. However, my initial oppose comments still hold: the image is obviously out of focus, but I don't see how it's an advantage to privacy. The people are still recognizable to me. I feel the man in the yellow jacket behind the couple stands out more than either couple in the foreground or the background. My feeling was there were two layers of out-of-focusness: the original camera's, plus another indescribable layer. I see now you used a Pakon scanner, so obviously this is incorrect. Add the distortion from the lens, and I really it was a photo of a photo. Finally, I had some issues with composition, including part of the building dipping in at the top left and the unfortunate pole in the middle. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 17:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. No hard feelings. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support The picture has historical significance. It is well-composed and well-executed. I support the granting of featured picture status to it.
 * I like the way that the focus is broken between the foreground and background, and in particular how the married couple's faces are somewhat out of focus. To me, having the married couple out of focus takes the subject matter of this image away from the personal experience of anyone in particular, and makes this image more representative of the community in general. I feel the same way about the out-of-focus cheering crowd; the picture clearly shows that crowds are around, but detail in the crowd does not distract from this picture as an illustration of the connection between marriage and the courthouse in the background.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose on three grounds. The image adds value to the article but not at the level needed for FP.
 * Wrt photographic qualities, the image leaves much to be desired. The subject is distant, out-of-focus and partially obscured by the crowd and a bollard in the middle. It is a snapshot and not at feature quality levels imo.
 * Wrt commons policy on photographs of identifiable people, the issue is that the couple are your subject. If you need consent to photograph the subject and publish that photograph here, then no amount of out-of-focus = not "easily identifiable" hand waving will help. See the examples on that guideline. I'm not convinced you need consent for this photograph (a marriage is very much not a private act and they are in a public space), but if you feel it is needed as a courtesy, and you don't have it, then don't upload it.
 * Wrt EV, a marriage is a public statement that we typically use the word "celebrate" to describe. Having the identity of the subjects deliberately obscured to some degree rather dents the "public celebration" and gay pride EV. -- Colin°Talk 20:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The quality is not good. The main subject is not in focus and there are many distracting objects such as the pole sticking out midframe --Muhammad (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose quality is simply not of FP standards. Much of the image is way out of focus and the contrast seem rather high to me which leaves the image too dark.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amadsciemtist. Quality is sub par for any article, much less FP.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose --the contrast is fine, and a narrow depth of field would be fine, but focus really needs to be on the lead couple. As a public event in a public place on a day when a lot of media and public photography would be expected, there's no legal need for consent here at least in the US, and I believe the size of the individuals are rendered at would keep the image from being "about the individuals" rather than about the historic event. Unfortunately, having my eye pulled to the area of sharpest focus (some stairs) really leaves this image an "almost" for me. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very poor quality. TechFilmer (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nominator's eloquent reasons would be substantially more persuasive if the picture in question actually lived up to the claims made. Unfortunately it doesn't. The problems with focus, composition and contrast have already been pointed out by others but the poor quality is evident to the extent that I must dispute the nominator's specific claim that "There is sufficient clarity to see that the couples are same-sex." The matching suits notwithstanding, I had to look long and hard before I could see not only that they are of the same sex but what sex that actually is. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 21:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)