Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mike Godwin 2

Mike Godwin
Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2010 at 13:57:57 (UTC)
 * Reason:The quality is high, the composition is compelling (a landscape portrait makes you look twice...) and the image is used well. This is the second nomination, the first (which got 4.5 out of 5 supports...) can be found here. I do not feel this belongs on the main page for self-reference reasons, but I do still feel it deserves its place as an FP. If anyone's interested, this was the original.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Mike Godwin, Godwin's law, Cyber Rights
 * FP category for this image:People/Others
 * Creator:Lane Hartwell on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Mediochre lighting, distracting background, and a lack of head room. He also seems to squint, possibly because of the light. I think the disinterest in the first nomination was justified. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like there's lead room to me: his body is turned towards the space to the right, his head slightly as well.  Jujutacular  T · C 17:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * HEAD room with an H, as linked. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, misread that. You are correct :)  Jujutacular  T · C 19:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support As per the last time. As photographs of individuals in their natural settings go (that wasn’t intended to sound as “National Geographic” as it did), and as a class distinct from official portrait studios, this is one of Wikipedia’s better works, IMHO. The light and shadow is really good and ought to be used in one of our photography-based articles, like “Flash fill” as a paradigm (to supplement that cat picture. You can see how the photographer used a secondary flash positioned to Mike’s lower right (lower stage left). The grease board behind him lends an “academic&thinsp;/&thinsp;thinking person-like nature to it. Clearly very well done. Greg L (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The red channel is blown on much of the RHS of his face (our perspective), and you're seriously claiming that filler flash was used? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Was I “seriously” stating my opinion?? Oh my… FPC brings out such passion! As I wasn’t there, I don’t “claim” anything; all I can do is utilize my standard “IMHODisclaimer”, as I did above. Irregardless of whether it is natural fill or artificial fill, it is clear—particularly in the full-size image—that fill light is coming from his right (stage left); his collar is casting a clear and distinct shadow on his neck as a result of it; that much is just too obvious. We can chalk this up as being the product of a lucky break for the photographer (a window?), or we can chalk up as fill light by design. To me, it appears that little in this photo was an accident. Either way, I find that the outcome looks quite nice (IMHO). As regards the blown red channel: yeah, those highlights off his forehead are exceedingly close to a pure (255/255/255) white, as they ought to be. Greg L (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the issue here is that you have no remaining contrast in the red channel for a significant patch of his face (about 1/2 of his nose, left cheek and ear and 1/3 of the forehead). Posterised and non-recoverable. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Wow! --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 05:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice picture. - EdoDodo  talk 11:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral This is where a great photographer can make a good picture a great picture (I'm no great photographer,) but look at the hair line. Do you see the lack of detail?  That's caused by bad lighting.  The subject might have EV, though.  Gut Monk (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Agree with PLW's concerns regarding the lighting and facial detail.   Mae din\ talk 12:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per last time, support, though I'm happy to see it kept off the main page for self-reference reasons. AGK   00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please comment on the new concerns that have been raised? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support In the previous nom I had concerns about poor lighting, but liked the EV. So W.S. Fletcher (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as per the last time, with absolutely no concerns about usage anywhere on Wikipedia. Content should not be prejudiced on account of its source (otherwise I'd have to oppose US Mil photography!). Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. I see no reason why this shouldn't appear on the main page (the article doesn't deal significantly with his involvement). Cowtowner (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)