Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jack Layton

Jack Layton[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 05:19:55 (UTC)

Reason: Exceptional-quality image that I came across while browsing, used as the main image in the subject's article. The angle of the shot is great, and in my opinion frames the leader of one of the three primary parties in Canadian federal politics in a very recognizable pose. The angle is very stately, but again, just my personal opinion. I figured it didn't hurt to give it a shot.
Articles in which this image appears: Jack Layton
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People
Creator: Matt Jiggins

Support as nominator --ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like it! Noise exists but is not distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - was surprised when I found that this was available, like others had said above, it has exceptional quality. Connormah (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, noisy and over-compressed. Very bad quality --Muhammad(talk) 00:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it the second. The background is noisy... but unsharp and overcompressed? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, it's definitely overcompressed - 6MP and only 577KB; you're unlikely to be able to do that unless there's big stretches of uniform colour. The 'noisy' background is actually more artefacting. I'd like to see a less compressed version of this, because, again as Muhammad says it is unsharp, but that may be partly a consequence of the over-compression, because it looks quite good at image page size. --jjron (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message for Matt on the photos flickr page to see if he has a uncompressed or less compressed version. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can message him if you'd like - that's how I got him to release the colour version - it had originally been uploaded as black and white. Connormah (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got a response already. He has an uncompressed tiff version that I will convert to png and upload - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong (probably am here), but isn't .jpg best for storing photographic data? Connormah (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, but for use on Wiki it's recommended to use JPG. Just apply a low compression setting (for example if using Save As... in Photoshop, use a quality setting of 11 (or 12 if you really want to)). --jjron (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jpg does not handle high quality gradients when thumbnailed. Causes all sorts of whacky artifacts. As long as its under 12.5 million pixels, png is definitely the way to go, IMO. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose storing photographs as PNG for several reasons: 1) Just because we can go up to 12.5 MP doesn't mean that extra filesize is warranted. The larger the filesize, the more difficult it is to load. 2) Important EXIF metadata is lost. 3) JPEG quality 100 is virtually indistinguishable from PNG except at boundaries with computer-generated sharpness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Floydian: WP image guidelines, as I said recommending JPG. Hmm, given that 90% of our FPs are JPGs, I'm not sure what you're suggesting, because I'd reckon most look OK. And what's the issue with 12.5MP? --jjron (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The php files that generate thumbnails are based on oldschool programing from the days when 2 megapixels was WHOAAA! If a png has over 12.5 Mpx, then no thumbnail shows up, just a written error message. I can show you the problem with jpgs using an image I've uploaded. See the talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I guess the fact that no one has done anything about that problem from years ago is a general indication of how PNG is regarded though. --jjron (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice shot; we don't have many high-quality free content images of prominent politicans, so it's great to have one. Neutrality^talk 05:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to me there is no encyclopaedic value in the neck skin details of a person. Any un-staged pose with a less unnatural facial expression or in a meaningful context has higher EV. --Elekhh (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As above. There is a disturbing alien look in this face and the image quality is way below FP standards. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Staged portraits make up a large number of the FPs of people that we have. Also, I don't think the facial expression is unnatural. Cowtowner (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have to be the slaves of the past though. Anyway they tend to make it to the main page via the news section, regardless of quality. --Elekhh (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]