Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/starlette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Starlette

Reason

Another one that probably wouldn't make it these days IMO - nominated 2 years ago. Low quality pic, the girl's face is blurry, no longer appears at photojournalism (it's "core" article).

Nominator

Witty lama

• Delist — Witty lama 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist the subject is (unfortuneately) cut off ; ) -Fcb981 23:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Great composition, still appears in (and contributes to!) three articles. Blurry face is irrelevant, the starlet is nameless and the focus is on the photographers. Puzzles me how this shot could be considered low quality. --Dschwen 12:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

By "low quality" I didn't mean aesthetically, I meant that it is not particularly high res/clear shot - the film quality is low, probably due to the fact that it was taken before digital cameras (assumption based on the other cameras in the shot) and has been scanned and blown-up later. Witty Lama 13:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The film is Kodachrome 25 the best of the time. It was scanned from transparency. I have a 24 megapixels scan if you want. Ericd 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Striking enough to be featured in my opinion. Technically it looks like most pictures in the 70s looked like, but that's no major problem in my opinion. -Wutschwlllm 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Wutschwlllm. The majority of the model is in focus — Jack · talk · 03:08, Wednesday, 25 April 2007

The majority of the model that is actually visible. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. By the way, the removal of this image from photojournalism was not discussed. It was removed with the following edit summary: "removed "starlet" photo; dubious relevance". --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "dubious relevance"? Am I the only one who doesn't understand this summary? What's so dubious about it? I'm going to add it again. -Wutschwlllm 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "Photojournalism is a particular form of journalism...that creates images in order to tell a news story." I don't see anything in this photo that is remotely involved with "telling a news story." Rdikeman 02:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Whether you like it or not, whether you deem it newsworthy or not, this stuff is what fills thousands of print pages in periodicals every day. It is not our job to cast judgement on this sad fact. --Dschwen 07:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I uploaded this shot to illustrate Cannes film festival not photojournalism and I think most (but not all) of the photographers here are amateurs. Ericd 17:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
          • BTW (sadly ?) there's is no more starlets posing at the Festival. Ericd 17:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I think this shot is pretty unique.... If it were a still object instead of a scene I would want to delist it, but it's a scene and I'm not sure how you'd duplicate it. gren グレン 04:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. The image suffers from fuzziness and the composition suffers too as the woman at the bottom is cut off. It doesn't have enough historical significance to ignore its technical faults. Besides, it is reproduceable (though not with the same unnamed starlette). If someone visits a movie premiere, they could easily shoot an equivalent pic to illustrate photojournalism. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Historically significant (dig those strides, dude!) compelling and generally exempt from nit-picking technical gripes. Great composition and opportune capture to boot. Absence of effective time-travel machine makes reproducability rather moot. mikaul^talk 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Reproducable, fuzzy, and bottom is cut off. Doesn't meet standards anymore. Reywas92^Talk 00:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Just for reference, it was previously nominated for delisting. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Shows the 70s. It's not reproducible as some people think. You can't go back in 70s and take the pic again. I like the dudes in the back and how they are dressed. And I don't think you see a model like this in movie premiers. You might see in festivals but not premiers. My keep is weak, because the quality is not the best of Wikipedia. --Arad 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • Detail at 4800dpi (around 24mpixels for the whole picture)at the edge where resolution is not optimal for a wide angle. Notice she didn't shave her legs. Ericd 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Like I said in another delist, until you can come up with a better photograph, I suggest keeping. And this is a rather special image, made more so by the fact that it is quite an old image... in fact, I think I saved this to my hard drive some time ago. --Vaelta 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept MER-C 10:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)