Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mark Harmon

Mark Harmon

 * Reason:meets most of the FPC criteria.
 * Articles this image appears in:Mark Harmon
 * Creator:Jerry Avenaim


 * Support as nominator --Music2611 (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support edit 1 with a request to take the nomination live. This is high quality portraiture.  Durova Charge! 05:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomination re-opened following upload of larger version as Edit 1. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * support - while total pixel dimensions could be larger, the face takes up a large fraction of the image, and is detailed. de Bivort 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. While the composition and mood of the photo is great, has nobody noticed that the face is a bit overexposed? I've uploaded a slight edit which reduces the highlight luminosity on his face. Its subtle, but I think it makes the photo look a bit more balanced, while still contrasty. My preference is Support Edit 2 with weak support for the original (edit 1). Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on Comment Edit 2 does seem like a more accurate exposure, but does anyone think it makes him more sullen looking, the creases and texture of his skin more prominent? I take it our job on FPC is not to flatter celebrities, but as far as portrait photography goes making the subject look good is a consideration.  Curious to see how others react. Fletcher (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another comment on the Comment I was going to say the same thing. But I refrained from going as far as an edit, albeit more from professional courtesy than a lack of desire to make the portrait more encylopedic and/or technically perfect. I do prefer it per Edit2 though with less of a high key effect on the face, that's just MHO. Mfield (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support the image, undecided on which version. Fletcher (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose' the original and edit 1. Neutral for edit 2.  It's not that big, and for professional, commercial celebrity portraiture I feel that we shouldn't settle for the bare minimum; maybe somebody wants to make a poster based on the image.  On the other hand, encouraging this kind of contribution is good, and we can also raise our standards later if free licensing of this type of image becomes common.--ragesoss (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, this nomination was suspended for a week in order to request a larger file size. During that time any argument for a larger minimum might have been made, but wasn't.  The photographer has complied with our published requirements and it really isn't fair to change the rules and generate a double standard after the photographer has fulfilled our request.  Professional photographers have financial motivation not to upload larger files than necessary, due to the risk of downmarket exploitation of their work.  The best way to encourage this type of contribution is to operate within our existing rules.  Then, if we're fortunate enough to receive more of this type of material, at some point where the standards generally rise we may review the existing material on that basis.  Let's not look fickle.  Durova Charge! 08:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Durova. This sort of commercial photography being released on GFDL or CC licenses is not common, and it's easy to understand why. Once an image is put on the internet - particularly a site like Wikipedia where people actively come looking for 'free' media - it is a genie that is very difficult to put back in the bottle. I'm not a full time photographer where my work is my livelihood, but I do make a bit of money on the side from it, and even I am a bit concerned with uploading my best work at the best resolution here, because it may impact my income from photography. It is very difficult to quantify, but I can certainly see why photographers are concerned. My estimation is that only about 20-30% of people who use images from Wikipedia elsewhere on the web actually conform to the license terms. Everyone else skips the fine print and assumes they can use it in whatever way they wish. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Durova's comment about fairness... that's why I'm not opposing it. The main reason I commented at all was to note my preference for edit 2, while intending to remain agnostic about whether any version should be promoted.  Diliff: I understand that general concern, but to put the minimum resolution version of this image in the same discussion as the kinds of things you upload... I think that does a disservice to the quality of your work, not to mention that even your scaled-down shots are usually much bigger than this.  I think formal portraits should be held to a higher standard, since it's such a controlled situation.  (By the way, how many of those 70%-80% who misuse Wikipedia licenses would have paid for rights under any circumstances?  In my experience, the people/organizations who normally pay for image rights will do so even if you mark your uploads PD; I was recently paid for such a shot, which appeared in New Scientist.  Obviously you would know better than me, but I would be surprised if adding your copyleft work to Wikipedia would have anything but a positive impact on your bottom line.)--ragesoss (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right that many of those who use my images wouldn't pay for them if given an ultimatum, but is that really the point, anyway? Why should they be allowed to break the terms of the license? That's the thing - if someone contacted me to ask if I would waive the license terms, and their intended use was reasonably non-corporate (I don't have much sympathy for rich clients who want to nick someone's work for free but still profit from it in some way), I'd probably let them. But when somebody doesn't have the decency to ask or conform to the terms, then I'm going to be far less likely to compromise. As for holding portraits to a higher standard because they're relatively static subjects, maybe, but that doesn't make a portrait any less exploitable by those who don't respect the terms of the license, which is the whole point really. In any case, it is likely that the photographer is at best mildly flattered by the nomination but isn't prepared to compromise his commercial viability for the privilege. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2. Per all the reasons above. Nautica Shad es  15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support All edits, preference for edit 1. See reasons above, the photo is beautiful, and that I believe that modifying the photograph detracts from the original photographers intent.  This is my personal opinion and throw my support to any edit that should achieve consensus.  Bastique demandez 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you to an extent, but this isn't the photographer's personal exhibition, and anything that presents the subject in a more encyclopaedic and easily visible way should be the goal, IMO. Granted, the change is quite minute, and possibly does grate against the photographer's intentions, but my interpretation of those intentions is that he wanted to make it a bit arty with strong lighting, which is fine for many uses, but isn't ideal for an encyclopaedia. Thats not to say I'm not supporting it - I am, but I don't think it stands above scrutiny or modification just because it was taken by an established photographer. Just my two cents anyway. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support without particular preference (undecided on which is best yet). I've had a look through the Featured Pictures, and don't think that this falls below the standard established for living figures. Wikipedia is of course a project that anyone can contribute to, and I don't think we should discriminate on the basis of the identity of the uploader. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 - Not often we get posed, professional, celebrity photos. Photo is very well done and would be a great thing for the front page - Peripitus (Talk) 12:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 per Peripitus. You can see his features better in this one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 It's the best-looking one of the three.Nightscream (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support any hi-res version. One of my reservations about the image-use policy has been that it generally consigns us to whatever we're lucky enough to get from Flickr's two eligible streams for images of celebrities, particularly movie and TV stars, that readers wonder what's going on when everywhere else you can see pictures of these people that look like what we see on screen. Pictures like these change that. Promoting this and putting it on the Main Page at some point will encourage further high-quality free-image submissions. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question as this is a private portrait, and not a public image, we still need permission from the subject as the license is a commercial license or no? I mean the photographers copyright does not extend to licensing the image this way without the express permission of the subject? Mfield (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I am interested as I have a lot of images of notable subjects that were taken in the same manner. Mfield (talk)
 * Oppose an ideal FP portrait is not black and white. Cacophony (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Not common to get high quality portraits of celebrities on Wikipedia, and IMO black and white is ideal, and I prefer it over colour photography for portraits. --Krm500 (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Quite a good portrait and very encyclopedic and quite rare to get a celebrity actual portrait shot released under such terms. I agree btw that black and white is definitely better than color for this type of shot. Cat-five - talk 09:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)