Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marlon Brando

Marlon Brando, The Wild One promotional photo
Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014  at 17:45:29 (UTC)
 * Reason:Unique high quality portrait with no apparent technical flaws.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Marlon Brando, The Wild One, 2004, Black
 * FP category for this image:People/Entertainment
 * Creator:Columbia Pictures


 * Support as nominator --JJARichardson (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have two issues with this. First of all, the lighting seems off to me. The center of his face is well lit, but the left side of his face is poorly lit. The light pointing on the wall off to the left side of his head makes it seem like the light source itself is to his left, which makes unlit the left side of his face is feel, as I said, off. (Note that I'm talking his left, our right facing the image). The other thing that bothers me is how out of focus half of the collar is. I can understand the arm being out of focus, but not the collar; it's too close to the face for it to be that blurry. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ   Wha?  23:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The collar is in the correct amount of focus for the image. The plane of focus is almost directly on his eyes (if I had to guess, I would say it is directly on the tip of his nose); the front of the collar extends into its depth as it reaches forward. By contrast, the back edge of the collar is behind his head. If you want a reference as to how shallow the DOF for this image is, look at his left ear-it's out of focus but scarcely more than 2 inches back. The shallow plane here is obviously deliberate; focussing an image this precisely is not easy. Likewise, others noted that the the lighting is artificial, or at least counter-intuitive (in a world that typically has one light source-the sun), but this is hardly unexpected as it is a studio shot, and likely not purposeless either (it highlights the gleam of his jacket, puts an ambiguous shadow over his face, sharpens his features) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.132.240 (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't a lot of that kind of the point? The movie is called "The Wild One", the lighting will be meant to be a little disturbing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Yeah, the lighting is very artificial-looking. Sca (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is a fine picture, but I wouldn't put it over the FP bar. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Everyone know that all good art is evenly lit and in perfect focus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a false argument, LuckyLouie. "The lighting choice was deliberate" is not mutually exclusive with "the lighting choice was poorly executed". In just about every image I looked at in Chiaroscuro, there was a single point of origin for the light, and the light and shadow logically followed from that point. In this image, there appears to be two points of origin for the light, and so the shadow does not appear to logically follow the light source. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ   Wha?  19:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support this historical and unique image (unless WP:FP? specifies that light in images must have a single point of origin and shadows must logically follow the light source.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, the light looks a bit weird by our modern standards, but who cares? It makes a dramatic shot that is otherwise a very good portrait. --Ebertakis (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Question - Has someone actually verified that this was not renewed? (I mean, opened up the renewals list?). We've already lost one FP to a deletion based on there being no confirmation that the image lacked a notice, and I'm not letting it happen again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 17:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)