User:Opencooper/The Ideal page image

Most of the time on Wikipedia there isn't much choice in what images can be used to illustrate a topic. An editor is either lucky to have a singly freely licensed image, or is forced to use only one under fair use. However, there are cases where one might be able to choose between many photographs (if the subject flourished pre-1923 for example) or to create their own. This is what this essay tries to advise on, based on my own personal and non-professional feelings.

Portraits

Own work

If you are taking your own photographs, take plenty and don't hesitate to upload multiple because what might suffice for one use might not be so good for others. The ideal infobox image shows the face of the subject clearly and is usually framed up to their neck or sternum. (exceptions might be if the full body of the subject is part of their notability such as for a model or bodybuilder) The subject should be alone, but photographs of them with a significant other or close friend can also be useful if they are known for that association. (Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro could use such a photo) The lighting should be even and shouldn't obscure significant features of the face, such as putting the eyes in a shadow. The lighting should be neutral (or white-point adjusted in post) and editing minimal. Under no circumstances should the images be heavily processed to the point of distorting reality such as by removing scars or moles. (Wikipedia is meant as an objective record, beauty shots should be reserved for publicity stills) Filters, such as black-and-white should not be applied to the images, unless the image was actually taken using a medium that naturally has those properties. Posing the subject should be left to your discretion, but their face should not be distorted such that they are hard to recognize or the face is unbelievable. One thing to watch out for is catching people by surprise, especially with flash, resulting in a deer in the headlights look. Care should be taken to capture a flattering photograph, as the subject's Wikipedia article will likely serve as their de facto home page.

Pre-existing

Full-length portraits should be cropped closer to the face. Superfluous borders and margins should also be removed. Higher resolution images should be preferred since they usually preserve details best, but prioritize sharpness of the subject. Images of the subject when they were most active should be preferred. (if no period stands out, pick their middle ages since that is when their facial features have fully developed, but are still defined and not obscured by wrinkles) Do not use manually colorized versions of images as they are only guesses at colors, while the black-and-white version is the facsimile. Death images should never be the primary image of the article if it can be helped (unless it's a "Death of..." article). The type of media in preferred order are: photographs, paintings, etchings/lithographs, sculptures, caricatures, and sketches due to the fidelity of each representation. (although sculptures should be second, I'm not a big fan of them because they're gray slabs which obscures features, and because they tend to be damaged or overinterpreted)

Other subjects

Regarding photographs of structures, the goal should be to capture the shape rather than just the facade. Multiple angles might be tried, as well as detail shots. Lighting plays a big role here as too much light might reflect off of and obscure details, and many structures light up at night. (prioritize visibility though as night images might lack edge contrast to really get the silhouette of the structure) While ideally it would be great to have an image without pedestrians, traffic, parked cars, and detritus, realistically it isn't feasible. Post-processing is more acceptable for structures to bring out their qualities, especially since there are less concerns over misrepresenting a person.

See also

• Commons:Image guidelines