Talk:Jude Harrison

The personality part was so POV that I refused to read the rest. Someone should really clean this up. Addie777 01:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Judeharrison.jpg[edit]

Image:Judeharrison.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image[edit]

Please see this discussion (centralized at FPC talk) regarding the lead image. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from editing the image based on what you feel Featured Picture thinks it should be. The image you have provided is not not accurate, and it is very clear that the only motivation behind it is FPC, not the good of the article. We have many articles of charachters with stylised lighting as provided, we don't edit these pictures to match what we 'think' they should look like i only had to type in one TV series to find 3 more, Ryan Atwood, Julie Cooper and Taylor Townsend. It's not even something you have started to do recently so this isn't something you are working on (this is the only example of it), it is entirely to promote a picture to FP status, which over at FPC s fair enough, but don't try to impose innaccurate images on this article. JFitch (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the central discussion on the FPC talk page, where we're discussing both of the articles where you've chosen to revert consensus edits without discussion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edits were not consesus, promotion was. The discussion at FPC is the place for the status of the picture. Discussions regarding images used in articles should be on the article talk page, which is here. Please refrain from reverting the Article image without any consensus on the article talk page, A promoted FP does not mean it should be placed in the article. JFitch (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. This image of the cast of Instant Star shows Alexz Johnson looking very much like she does in the white balance edit. Most of the images I found through a Google search have similar colors. That, to me, shows that the white balance edit is an accurate representation of the character. Unless someone can provide evidence that this is not the case, the white balance edit should be the version in the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your essentially saying we can't take what the studio provides to be an accurate representation, which is why we need a white balance edit, and then using a picture provided by the studio to back this up, which makes no sense at all, if what they provide is correct, which it is, then the original image is correct. Also the temperature of the picture with the star members is very different to that of the WB edit. The fact the group shot in a white studio where the shot is mainly lit by the fill light, and the shot in an elevator shot with coloured lighting and the subject lit with the key light now look the 'same' (although the colours are off) just shows how bad of an edit it is. JFitch (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Is another example from the shoot showing the lighting, and the colours that it should be. JFitch (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's from the same shoot. Of course it has the same colors. The image I provided was meant to show that the character has a normal skin tone and not the strange yellowish tone of the original photo. In every other publicity shot I can find, as well as in screen captures from the actual show, her skin more closely matches the color of the white balance edit. Whether a white balance edit is necessary is debatable, but the assertion that only the original version is an accurate representation of the character is patently false. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand entirely. The image is under that lighting so therefore that is what her skin looks like under thos circumstances. The white balance edit is wrong simply BECAUSE it looks like other shots in a white lit studio. A white balance edit is to correct a technically incorrect white balance. Not to change the colour because you dint like the lighting setup of the shot. Because of this the white balance edit is certainly not an accurate representation of the character. JFitch (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, too, has been discussed already. Different kinds of light cause different white balances, and that's why, in the world of film photography, you have daylight film and artificial light film, and you pick the film appropriate to the kind of light you're going to have to handle. In the same way, jpeg cameras have white balance settings that you're supposed to use in order to avoid the picture sinking in yellow in the way demonstrated by the original here. I'm still not sure that you've understood what a colour cast is, though. A colour cast is the equivalent of taking a picture and pouring some colour on top of it, reducing contrast. A colour cast is a way of hiding detail. It is simply not appropriate in any article other than colour cast, not least because of the argument made by Peter Karlsen. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've tried to make two points there, both are different subjects, because you don't seem to know exactly what your talking about. It's not both white balance and colourcast, it would always be one or the other, they are seperate issues (note added below before you jump over it). In this case it's neither! It's not a white balance mistake, it's a lighting decision made by the photographer and studio about how the shot should look. Using your example that you linked to, if someone from outside and had walked in while the actress was in the same position under the same lights then they would not get a shot like your 'WB Edit' because that is not what the actress would look like under these lighting conditions, and that is why the edit is not an accurate representation. I know exactly what colour cast is and exactly what white balance is, you seem to know the basics about both subjects and are using them in the wrong situations to try and show something is technically wrong, when in fact that is not the case at all. There is nothing technically wrong with this picture, if you don't like it thats fine, but don't try and make changes based on it being technically correct, when it is. And saying that an image with any colourcast is not appropriate is ignoring my point I made earlier where I used examples here that I found of several pictures in identical situations (tv character article) where these lighting decisions are not disputed. They only arrose here out of FPC and that is not how lead images are selected. JFitch (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Minor edit to clarify as i'm sure you'll jump all over it otherwise. I stated the white balance and colour cast are seperate issuses, which you're probably going to dispute with your understanding, I am here referring to technically and when it comes to technical problems, obviously they work simultaneously in achieving results, but with a technically incorrect picture the problem is with one or the other.) JFitch (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be broadly arguing in favour of the established consensus. The fact that something passed unnoticed elsewhere, if it were true, does not mean it's acceptable. We don't accept spelling mistakes across WP just because some of them go unnoticed. And just because I fix one spelling mistake doesn't mean I, personally, have to fix them all. You still haven't made any new points, so I continue to consider the very recently reached consensus as valid. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you really dont get it do you. There is nothing technically wrong with this photograph, therefore it can't be changed on technical grounds. Comparing it to a spelling mistake is to imply that it is technically incorrect, which is not true. And yes when trying to determine what is acceptable here on wikipedia we certainly look at other articles. My points haven't changed because they are still correct. JFitch (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]