Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi

Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi
Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 14:59:01 (UTC) . An Islamic Scholar and a descendent of the Holy Prophet of Islam.
 * Reason:Articles/stubs that now use this photo were previously without any photos, EV is high, good quality
 * Articles in which this image appears:Muhammad Rizvi Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi Turban
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Others
 * Creator:hasin

I can provide more precedences, but for brevity, have just provided one for each point. hasin 04:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasin Shakur (talk • contribs)
 * Support as nominator --hasin 14:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Small, unremarkable, noisy. Reflection in subject's glasses. Eyes not sharp. Distracting background. -- Colin°Talk 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Small: As per what criteria? FP criteria cite 1500px as minimum. This image is larger
 * Unremarkable: Subjective. Any person's photo can be unremarkable to someone who is not aware about that person. However, EV is still high and significant to those who look for information on this person. This photo is definitely remarkable Especially since the attire including the head-wear (Turban) is one worn by Sayyid's and islamic scholars.
 * Noisy: Subjective. I think the noise is invisible for all practical purposes, unless you magnify the largest size. At the largest size there is hardly any visible noise. Take a look at this FP for precedence
 * Reflection in subjects glasses: Hardly any reflection visible. More reflections are visible in other featured pictures here
 * Eyes not sharp: Only if you magnify more than the largest size. At the largest size eyes are sharp. Here is an FP precedence
 * Distracting background: I disagree. However, for argument sake take a look at this FP. I think the background in this picture is more distracting and busy but that did not stop it from being a featured picture.
 * Just because an opinion is subjective doesn't invalidate it. You are welcome to disagree.
 * The minimum size criteria are only a a crude proxy measurement for whether an image is likely to be detailed enough or to print at large sizes. This 3.3MP portrait has very little detail and looks poor even at preview size.
 * As portraits go, this is very unremarkable. I'm not commenting on the subject. Being unremarkable isn't a fatal flaw but isn't a plus point either.
 * There is a lot of noise in this picture, which is hardly surprising if the EXIF data is correct that it was taken at 1100 ISO. That's simply an unusable ISO for portraiture, especially with that age of camera. The camera has had to apply such heavy denoising that there is no detail left: for such a close-up shot, I should be able to see the texture of the fabric and wrinkles on his face. But even the high denoising applied hasn't removed all the chroma noise (coloured splotches). While it is subjective whether a degree of luminance noise is acceptable, nobody likes chroma noise. The noise is visible even in the preview size. The Vishnevskaya portrait has very little noise and a lot of fine detail.
 * Either there is reflection in the glasses or they are very dirty. Either way, it reduces the contrast at the eyes, which is vital for a successful portrait. The Fumihiko Maki portrait has tiny reflections that don't obscure the eyes.
 * The overall lack of sharpness is due to the high iso and denoising, rather than focus error or poor choice of aperture. The Vishnevskaya portrait has they eyes in focus and there is a huge amount of detail: you can see all the lines and pores in her face. There's really no contest here.
 * The Riin Tamm picture is an environmental portrait -- so the lab is as much part of the picture as the person. In contrast, this picture's brown curtains detract from the image.
 * You won't win an FP by arguing this one has some of the same flaws as other FPs. Some flaws aren't fatal and if the image had other redeeming features it might still succeed. In this case, the high ISO has robbed this picture of any detail and the noise makes it unpleasant to look at. Colin°Talk 09:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Colin. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please look at my responses above hasin 04:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please look at Colin's response to same. Moreover, the stoic and emotionless expression of this individual is so off-putting as to be a major negative and seemingly in stark contrast to his works. The centred composition is banal. The positioning on the coach is amateurish. The lack of context is aggravating. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. — raeky  t  20:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per expansive reasons listed above gaz hiley  09:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Certainly not a terrible candidate, to my eye, but I find the composition somewhat unremarkable. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I find this candidate worthy because of its EV. I disagree with Collin as to his issue with size. The FCP criteria for size has been met(of course bigger is better). The serious look, IMO, adds to the image of a serious author whose authority is respected in his field of specialization. The hazed glasses seem to be just that and not due to lack of sharpness.Abudhar (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: above user only has 4 edits, all to FPC nominations.  Spencer T♦ C 02:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I would prefer though that the description refer to his specialties as opposed to only his descent(or maybe in addition to). He is a speaker and a prolific writer and published author.Can anyone make these changes or do we need noms/editors permission?Abudhar (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The framing should have been tighter and in portrait or wider I think. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Colin. — ΛΧΣ  21  01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Not really my area but I have to disagree even though this obviously isn't going to be featured. I actually find the composition rather striking, with the symmetry of his pose offset by the white couch, and I like the seriousness portrayed here. Surely you wouldn't want to see a smile.ProfDEH (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 14:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC) ProfDEH & Abudhar: Thanks for the support. I like the picture too :) hasin 17:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasin Shakur (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Colin / Saffron Apologies if my arguments against your points seemed personal. They were not. Frankly I am still confused by how the criteria mentions the minimum size but you mention that the size requirements are only a 'crude proxy measurement'. As to the points you made that i termed subjective, I did so to point to other editors that your points were subjective. I did not do so to mean that your opinions were invalid. As per your argument against precedences, I think precedences are important and should count. However, I meant them as examples since no two photos can be the same. I waited till the voting period ended to post this as I did not mean this to be an adamant defense but just a clarification of my points.