File talk:Stephen Colbert-2.jpg

Please, whoever is responsible for this travesty, delete it. The "enhancements" to this image make it look, quite frankly, like crap, and I am not happy with having my name associated with it. The original image is already on Commons, without the bizarre "enhancements" that this version has been inflicted with. Please delete this and go back to using the version I uploaded there. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the enhancement. And, while I agree that it doesn't look great, that's because the original was crap. You uploaded an awful photograph, where the horrible lighting makes Colbert look like he's been sitting under a sun lamp for days, and the person behind him is more in focus than and better lit than he is. I fixed that as much as I could, but there's only so much you can do when starting with such shoddy work. -- noosphere 03:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image was taken outdoors in a shaded area, so shaded lighting is to be expected. And Colbert wasn't wearing (much) makeup, either. So, the photograph does not look much like his publicity photos. Digitally altering it to look more like his publicity photos is simply dishonest. Colbert really did look like that on that June morning -- not that you would know, since you've never met him in person. The lighting is what it was: the shot was taken in a shaded area off the main green where the graduation ceremony was held. Altering the image to try to "alter" the lighting is, again, dishonest. You take your subject as you find them; not every shot can be a studio shot, and shots that aren't studio shot shouldn't be altered to make them look like studio shots. And for you to state that the university official behind him is in "better focus" than he is indicates that you don't know what "in focus" means -- but that doesn't surprise me given the broad general incompetence of so many of the English Wikipedia's amateur photoabusers. Please, keep away from my images; they don't need your help. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that the enhancments make the photo look "more like a publicity photo". Generally publicity photos make the person look better than they do in an ordinary photo. Therefore, you're admiting that the enhancment is better than the original photo.

Second, there are plenty of ways of taking pictures in the shade where the subject doesn't get woefully underexposed and out of focus, like Colbert was in the original photo. Correcting for underexposure and focus is not "dishonest". It's not like the correction is removing pimples or anything.

Third, I see no Wikipedia policy saying that we couldn't use publicity photos of the subject of an article, and that we must use whatever crappy amateur photos someone can come up with, no matter how bad. Nor do I see any policy saying that we can't correct underexposure or focus in photos that are uploaded to Wikipedia. If you know of any such policies please let me know. --noosphere 00:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a lot of image editing and I agree that the original isn't a very good picture, but it looks a lot better than your edit. The only thing that looks better in yours is the blurred background, you shouldn't have sharpened his face, or made it so pale. If you left Colbert alone and just blurred the background it would look a lot better. 129.128.235.107 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a version of the image with a blurred background, and i fixed his crows feet. you guys can use it if you want, but i don't know how to add an image on wikipedia. Here it is http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/30362/2006081395887231984_rs.jpg 129.128.235.107 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His skin still looks like he's got severe sunburn. Sorry. -- noosphere 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]