Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Maggie Roswell

Maggie Roswell
Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 21:37:51 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality portrait released for use by the subject (who is the copyright holder, as confirmed by the photographer). Obvious EV, good technicals, used as the lead in a high quality article with this as the sole illustration.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Maggie Roswell
 * FP category for this image:People/Entertainment
 * Creator:Tommy Collier of Empire Mediaworks


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support  upstate NYer  23:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Portraits is one of the tough categories for FP. There is nothing I can see here that sets this portrait apart from the many that get nominated here. Greg L (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Expanding upon “nothing that sets this portrait apart”: I also find the the slightly olive-noted tan backdrop here, which gave her hair and her skin a similar color-cast, to be unattractive; it gives the whole picture a bland look. The “Edit 1”, without even that red blouse, looks like one of those 1950s pictures where an artist used a color pencil to add color to a black & white picture—except the artist was able to use one, single pencil to color nearly the whole thing (other than her lips). I think a small, spot fill light from behind her might have filled in the back of her neck with a “silver lining” of highlight. And that would be a work-around due to having her stand so close to the backdrop that she casts a shadow right behind her image (which is generally a terrible no-no unless properly managed with fills); it lends a “stand in front of the wall”, amateurish nature to the portrait. As portraits go, I don’t think this is anywhere near an example of fine photography. I do not find it to be eye-catching as a result of any virtues. Greg L (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really seem like a fair oppose. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  06:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree - this is not a competition... Please judge this as a stand-alone picture not whether it's better or worse than others... That's the responsibility of the Delist & replace section further down... gaz hiley .co.uk  09:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I expanded upon my explanation for my opinion that this isn’t anything special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg L (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 August 2010
 * Thanks gaz hiley .co.uk  15:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This is certainly one of the better ones. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * After viewing this a second time, I'm wondering if we could get a crop that focuses a little less on her decolleté. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We do also have this, but the slightly cut off hair and the watermark won't go down well here. Perhaps you'd like to suggest your own crop? J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original I just think she looks nicer in it, the red matches the soft lighting and the background, also her hair, earrings, lipstick... She knew what she was doing when she dressed herself that day. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  20:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original - a good portrait. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original - I think it's a fine portrait. Sasata (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Original only - Fine portrait, I oppose the edit, looks a lot worse. JFitch   (talk)  09:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Competent, even appealing portrait, but it doesn't stand out to me. I share Greg L's concerns too. --Avenue (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original. Fine portrait. - Darwinek (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support of original I do agree with some of Greg L's concerns, but overall the softness and clearness describes the subject well and pleasingly. Esther Clementina   talk  12:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support original Theleftorium (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  talk 03:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)