Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stefan Heym

Stefan Heym
Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014  at 03:08:52 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is featured on commons and has high encyclopedic value
 * Articles in which this image appears:Stefan Heym
 * FP category for this image:People
 * Creator:Antonisse, Marcel / Anefo


 * Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Face behind him is distracting. Why is this black and white when it was taken in 1982? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is the face, can't we process that out. If it is the black and white, nothing we can do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:FP? #8: "Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * Comment- The image is in back and white because it is an image that is dependent on texture for effect, not upon colour. Crisco 1492, as an artist and photographer, I find the fact that you are asking that question about a black and white image very disturbing. Black and White is a valid choice made by the photographer as artist.
 * The background image gives depth and context to the foreground face. Amandajm (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not addressing this as an artistic work, but as an encyclopedic photograph (not everything at Wikipedia's FPC is about the photograph as a work of art, Amanda, and that question was rhetorical anyways). Skin tone, eye colour, and hair colour are among the most standard requirements for identifying an individual, none of which are depicted here. Considering how common colour photography was in the 1980s, opposing black and white in preference of a colour photograph is entirely acceptable. You'll find that many other b&w portraits from the 1970s up have had a hard time at FPC (though some do pass).
 * As for the face giving depth and context, it's entirely doable without a face (which has distracting lines and tones which do not contrast very well with another face). I much prefer the use of the cabinet in Warren's picture of Coward (below). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In response, I would argue that in a bald grey-headed ageing man with dark eyes and bushy eyebrows, skin tone, eye colour, and hair colour are not among the most standard requirements for identifying the person as an individual. Colour is significantly less important as a person ages, which is the reason that many portrait photos of older people are in Black and white. The structure, form and texture of the features are always significant in portraiture, and become increasingly significant as the person ages. This picture conveys those elements extremely well, and, moreover, conveys "character".  If this forum has been in the habit of rejecting portrait photos on the grounds that they are in black and white, then you need to reconsider your values.  Would you reject an 19th century engraved portrait because it was an engraving, on the grounds that you would prefer a 19th century watercolour?  Amandajm (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously comparing two different mediums (apples and oranges) to two different varieties of one medium (Macintosh and Pink Lady)? Wow.
 * Yes, detail on the face is important (and the possibilities of fine grain B&W were obviously a consideration when this photograph was taken). Hair colour may have less value for identification as a person ages (assuming they do not dye it), but that is not to say all colour loses value. Again, we are not debating the value of this photograph as an artistic work. We are discussing it in the context for being featured on the English Wikipedia, which emphasizes encyclopedic work. There are many, myself included, who find black & white lacking. Don't get me wrong though, if there weren't a distracting face in the background, I'd have likely stayed neutral (and quiet) or voted a weak support (worth half a !vote). I try not to oppose simply because an image is B&W.
 * As for "If this forum has been in the habit of rejecting portrait photos on the grounds that they are in black and white,", I said they generally have trouble. I never said they are routinely rejected. Many just get more opposes than colour images would have. Stop putting words in my mouth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. While I do actually like this photo, like Chris, I am not keen on the greyscale; it's something we should be avoiding in recent photographs. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * is 1982 really considered recent?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Recent" is always relative. Relative to the development and widespread adoption of colour photography, I consider 1982 "recent". J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — Sharp image of an artistic face full of character. Sca (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - I like the picture, it's very clear. I don't think the fact that it's grayscale hurts it a slight bit. -- Cy be r XR ef ☎ 03:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Black and white film was still used in 1982 for a lot of things, this doesn't look like a mere desaturated image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 08:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)