Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Andrew Bird

I think it is an excellent photography, it illustrate the Andrew Bird article.

Oppose, very grainy when viewed at fullsize as well as blown highlights on the microphone and hands. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Grainy. - Samsara (talk · contribs) 07:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Grainy, blurry, dark... not the greatest depiction of this subject. tiZom_(2¢) 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above, though I do like the composition. --Tewy 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, from an encyclopedic aspect and taking the FP criteria under consideration, I feel this image fails. But the story being told by the selective lighting is intriguing. Conceptually, it is a nice image.--Andrew c 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, black and white can be pretty... but this guy was born in 1973 and I don't think feel that there is a good reason to have him in B&W without very good reason. gren グレン 15:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very low light is a very good reason. Ericd 13:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]