Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nishi tribal

Nishi Tribal


A photograph of a Nishi tribal taken during sunrise in Arunachal Pradesh. Appears in the Nishi article and another article depicting the people of the region. More information about the subject on the Image page.


 * Nominate and support. Preference for Janke's edit. - doniv 18:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support Wow, technically excellent, encyclopedic, good depiction of subject, and a funny hat! HighInBC 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support any version - slight preference for SG's or Janke's. Excellent portrait - good composition and quite an emotional image in addition to being encyclopaedic. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Nice portrait. Iorek85 01:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - getting my vote in before somebody shouts "OMG blown sky!!!!!111" - this is a superb, encyclopaedic and refreshingly human image; agree with Diliff about the emotional impact. --YFB ¿  01:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support — either edit. Blown sky!!!!!111 ;-). I'd strong support with a better exposure. -- Tewy  03:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do people care about blown highlights so much? For example, what information would otherwise appear there? A shallow gradient of sky color? Debivort 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you there. There are times when blown highlights can ruin a landscape image, but I generally think it is not nearly as important as people suggest. Sometimes it is literally impossible to avoid SOME blown highlights and still capture a specific scene. Sometimes selective overexposure/underexposure actually helps you to isolate a subject, in the same way that good composition does. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * People care about blown highlights because they are a distracting flaw in most photographs that contain them. You might consider the information that would otherwise appear there unimportant, but that doesn't mean the blown areas aren't distracting. Blown highlights were almost nonexistent when 95% of all photographs were taken on negative film, and the 5% that were taken on slide film were shot by working pros who were careful about overexposure.  Now the majority of photos seen on the web are shot with digital cameras, which react to light more like slide film - easy to overexpose and a narrower dynamic range than negative film to begin with.  I don't think the presence of a few 255, 255, 255 pixels necessarily means a photo can't be featured.  It's when those pixels are an obvious distraction to me that I oppose an image because of them. -- Moondigger 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do see your point, and I agree with much of it, but its the idea of what constitutes an obvious distraction that there is some subjectivity in, I guess. For example, while I wouldn't nominate this image for FPC by any means, I don't feel that the very obviously blown highlights in the background truely distract that much. Yes, you notice them, but since the background isn't the focus of the image, it isolates the foreground and thats what I was refering to previously. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The image smoothly gradiates into a small band of overblown sky near the horizon. I think it looks good. HighInBC 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support beautiful, top notch quality --Plane Mad 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Janke's edit. As per HighInBC, Diliff, and Yummifruitbat. Nautica Shades (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * support per above. Debivort 08:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. This is indeed a great portrait, marred by the gigantic swath of blown pixels across the center. My first thought upon seeing this image was, "nice portrait, too bad about the background exposure." The viewer's attention should be on the subject of the photo, but even folks who supported this image have to admit they were at least temporarily distracted by the blown area.  That said, the portrait is so good that I can't oppose - so I'm Switzerland on this one.  -- Moondigger 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't like the angle much, and I cannot possibly support something with so many blown highlights. Clearly I'm the only person that feels this way, but the image isn't very striking for me. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  12:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Pharaoh Hound. --mstroeck 14:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for me, the quality of the image in the foreground completely makes up for any blown highlights, especially as those highlights seem to be an area around the setting sun. The head is practically a silhouette but still contains amazing detail in the face and clothing.  Blow a few highlights if you must.  --Bridgecross 15:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I could have uploaded this photo, but it wouldn't have been encyclopaedic. With a sunrise in the background, there are bound to be blown highlights. But for portraits, I think it sometimes accentuates the subject. I do agree that the blown highlights are distracting in the FPC image, and was hesitant to nominate it. But then I thought it was a great portrait too. doniv 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose IMO it doesn't show the subject clearly. The highlights are very distracting because they are on the ecuator of the picture and with that angle i have a hard time figuring out how that headwear is suppoosed to look. Very artistic, but not very encyclopedic.Nnfolz 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great photo, and remember people the subject is the headdress, not the particular person (not a bio photo). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If the subject is supposed to be the headdress, it does not show it clearly at all.  And the photo itself hurts my eyes a bit.--DaveOinSF 02:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My oppose vote applies to all three versions now on this page.--DaveOinSF 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Incredible detail! Even with the bright sky, I still support this photo. However, I've uploaded an edited version to make the sky easier on the eyes, though I support any version. ♠ SG →Talk 03:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. per Diliff and others Mikeo 07:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose- per Pharaoh Hound  -- ZeWrestler   Talk 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I think there needs to be more light on the head and headgear.  howch e  ng   {chat} 21:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original my edit... ;-) Blown highlights - Duh! - he's looking into the sunrise! That gives a nice lighting effect on the face. Here, the 255-255-255 pixels are a plus, not a minus. --Janke | Talk 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sunrises don't have to be blown -- in fact, they look far better when they're not. -- Moondigger 15:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the subject here is not the sunrise. Had the exposure been for the sky, the face would have been a silhouette. Fill flash would have destroyed the feeling - the solution is perhaps a white or sivered reflector card, say 2 by 2 ft, but who carries something like that around all the time... --Janke | Talk 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Uploading a lightened version for those who think original is too dark. I used only the Curve adjustment, which means the highlights aren't affected. --Janke | Talk 08:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A proper background exposure for a portrait, however difficult it might be to obtain, is an important factor in what separates a good portrait from a great one. An off-camera shoe cord and a flash positioned to the left for fill would have done it, and it would have still looked as if the sunrise was the light source for his face.  A reflector to the right (behind the subject) would have provided some needed light on the headdress.  This is an excellent, moody image if we consider only the man's face.  But the lack of fill lighting for the headdress and the overexposed background prevent me from supporting the image.  I'm not opposing, but I'm not supporting either. -- Moondigger 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Janke's edit. Very encyclopedic, nice hat, good detail if the sky is ignored, which is supposed to happen as it is not the main subject | AndonicO 16:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - To all those who have opposed this on the premise of the subject not being clear, let me clarify that it covers all the elements. The hornbill beak, the monkey hair, the brass skewer through the hair bun and the cane weaving. As for the lighting, it's taken care of by Janke's edit - do check it out at full size. Please do explain if it still isn't encyclopaedic - doniv 16:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you pointed out what's supposed to be in that picture, because I sure can't tell... --DaveOinSF 06:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above description has been along with the image all the time. Also, if you could tell what these elements are at first glance, there would be nothing unique about them, no? Exactly the reason why people brave non-existent roads, nature and spend a lot of time to get such images - doniv 07:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that I cannot tell what part of the photo is the headdress and what part of the photo is the woman's hair. It's very unclear.--DaveOinSF 08:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a man! Actually I'm surprised about what you said, since the headdress is the half-cup cane woven part. His hair is black with white streaks. The bun up ahead is tied up with string. Anyone else facing this problem? Or are you pulling my leg? doniv 09:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Edit 2 - Good photo but doesn't make me think WOW! Arad 02:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Help! - It's been over 7 days, and there is an FP consensus. But I'd prefer to go with Janke's edit on this one. Unfortunately, I don't know the procedure. Can someone help or tell me what needs to be done? doniv 05:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be the consensus --Fir0002 07:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)