Support as nominator --
Eustress (
talk) 05:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Support The best picture on wiki without a doubt
Rockyobody (
talk) 03:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Too soft for a contemporary portrait.--
ragesoss (
talk) 05:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm elaborating a bit at the request of Eustress. I think this shot falls short for FPC 1: "Is of a high technical standard", particularly for focus and/or resolution. Basically, there is not much added detail beyond what is visible in the 800px wide version on the image page. The fine details are blurry (this stands out when viewing the eyes and hair). "Soft" is shorthand for all this; it's unclear whether this was caused by the focus being just a bit off (
defocus aberration), by the limitations of the camera and lens (
soft focus), or by
motion blur. Compare at full resolution the eyes in this photograph with the eyes in
File:HH Polizeihauptmeister MZ.jpg.--
ragesoss (
talk) 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose Its pretty small considering its resolution, so the softness could be the result of compression, though I'd expect more artefacts. It scrubs up ok at 1000px wide with some sharpening, but the quality isn't quite up to scratch for a 1.27 megapixel image. In my opinion whoever did the portrait should have used a hairlight so the head has some separation from the background (
here is an example of the effect]).
Noodle snacks (
talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above. Significant subject, but the technicals fall a little short.
DurovaCharge! 17:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Who says he's charismatic? And his hair fades into the background way too easily.
Daniel Case (
talk) 00:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose I have no idea where the hair on the back of his head ends and the background begins. Not a good portrait.
Omnibus (
talk) 07:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)reply