Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grace Kelly
Grace Kelly publicity still
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2011 at 14:29:20 (UTC)
- Reason
- Gorgeous shot, outstandingly posed and composed. And the digitization of this 55-year-old picture appears virtually flawless.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Grace Kelly
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment or Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty
- Creator
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, digitized by http://www.doctormacro.com/
- Support as nominator --Powers T 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I can't believe that this is a true digitization of the picture without any post work done. It seems to me like it's been run through photoshop since. If someone can show more evidence that this hasn't happened i will reconsider but i couldn't support as i strongly suspect that this is the case. JFitch (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Weak support. It's a really nice picture (lighting, composition, etc), and I'll AGF on all that copyright explanation. However either through airbrushing of the original image, Photoshopping of the digitised version, or simply loss of detail through excessive downsampling (190 KB is small for that resolution) we seem to be missing something, in particular the skin is far too smooth, lacking almost any texture. --jjron (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per JFitch - we have another image of Grace Kelly with a far more natural look than this, which would indeed suggest this has been through some processing at some point. Other images online support this. Nikthestoned 11:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose -- I'm somewhat iffy on the copyright explanation. If it needs more references than 40% of the articles here, we're on thin ground. If both this and the image suggested by Nik are PD, why not suggest the other too? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- That the uploader chose to include such a detailed explanation doesn't mean it was necessary. The fact that it was a publicity still and the copyright was unrenewed is sufficient. I didn't put the other one up for FPC because this one is used in the article, and I feel it's a better-looking shot, at least in thumbnail. Powers T 14:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm not seeing that much EV here, actually. This is a publicity shot for a movie, which means it's essentially in character, not a portrait of Her Future Serene Highness as a person. In addition, I don't really like the picture. It does indeed look heavily airbrushed to me; that was common in this kind of shot, so not out of place in, say, an article about publicity shots, but again I think it detracts from the image as a portrait. Chick Bowen 16:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)