Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
Appearance
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Obama_Portrait_2006.jpg/250px-Obama_Portrait_2006.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Obama_Portrait_2006.jpg/250px-Obama_Portrait_2006.jpg)
- Reason
- I just discovered this image, languishing as an orphan. It's a super-high-res shot of an obviously notable politician. You can count his pores, and there's nice bokeh. The lighting is a little dark on the right but maybe this could be edited if it's bothersome? I think it captures his fiery oratory well. This probably shouldn't be on the main page for a while, but regardless it would be a good FP in my opinion (and is about a million times better than the John Edwards one).
- Articles this image appears in
- Barack Obama
- Creator
- Ari Levinson (appears to be this guy, who I just sent a facebook message to confirm he is the uploader) Yep, just got confirmation that he was the uploader so we're good to go. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support as nominator Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I'm no photog, but it's a lovely photo for all the reasons laid out above. I even like the shadow on the right; it's artsy, but not in a cloying way. --Friejose (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 Much better quality than the John Edwards photo that's currently FP (except for the nose hair). — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-15 21:53Z
- Support amazing detail for a free image. Nasty noze hare though. de Bivort 22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)ww
- Support with no complaints about the lighting. This is gorgeous. Love the eyes (but tell the man to trim that nose hair). DurovaCharge! 22:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Edit 1 does it for me. Thanks. DurovaCharge! 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I like the Edit 1 better. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment With half of the supporters mentioning an out-of-place hair or two, I went ahead and got out the nose trimmers. Chicago god (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 per nom, sans nose hair. Chicago god (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 Wow, is that detailed!--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely. Looks really good and extremely hi-res. Timmeh! 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 only. Muhammad(talk) 05:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 Great shot --Fir0002 10:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support edit 1 - great shot, skilful edit (great politician). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- support edit 1 good quality picture. H92110 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Hmm, I wonder why no one cares about the lighting... 8thstar 18:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support the original with no complaints about the nose hair - this is part of the man, like Oliver Cromwell's wart, it simply belongs. Excalibur (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Part of the man"?? I'll agree that with certain people a scar or a mole is certainly "part" of them: a feature that is connected to their identity. Cindy Crawford, for example. Nose hair is not (and I hope does not become) a defining feature of this man.Chicago god (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support, preference original. Clearly an excellent example of the best of Wikipedia. I don't think there's any pressing reason to remove the hair and stain - they're part of the original, and are barely visible at most resolutions - but I don't have very strong feelings. TSP (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kommentar, is the waviness is the background... normal? gren グレン 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's normal distortion caused by the short depth of field. For portrait photography, a short depth of field is preferable in most cases.Chicago god (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support both well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 11:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 Met him at a rally last weekend, got my copy of The Audacity of Hope signed. :) But in all seriousness, great shot, and the minor alteration to remove the unflattering aspects is in no way a substantial change, and only improves the quality of the picture. faithless (speak) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No problem with the quality, but at least to me, the harsh light is very distracting. Clegs (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Clegs. Don't understand why everyone is fawning over this picture to such a degree. Yeah, it's very high resolution, but the lighting is pretty poor in my opinion. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Support Edit 1. Very nice photo. Interesting, high resolution, good sharpness. Does not currently appear in any article, however. Perhaps it was removed from the Barack Obama article? Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was removed from Barack Obama, although I'm not clear on the editor's reason for doing so. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I put the photo back in place. It was removed from the "Political Advocacy" section for no reason. If giving a stump speech, at a university, during a presidential election, in which you are a candidate, is not an example of advocating your politics... then I don't know what is. 68.166.155.242 (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was removed from Barack Obama, although I'm not clear on the editor's reason for doing so. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, and lord knows this isn't a politically motivated opposition. I find the photo unsettling-- it looks like he's turning around to demand that the photographer go away and leave him alone. Spikebrennan (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- You wouldn't want your photo taken either if you just remembered that you didn't trim your nose that morning. 68.166.155.242 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a very good portrait, unappealing facial expression. --Janke | Talk 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per poor facial expresion and other minor issues. Juliancolton (Talk) 14:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1. Excellent resolution and quality. Other then that, it stands out from your run of the mill portrait shot in that it shows an expression, which I find quite appealing and catching. The lighting isn't necessary to the photo but doesn't detract from it as far as I see it. --Mad Tinman T C 14:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)