Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jon Stewart at Cabaret 2008 benefit.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 14:53:35 (UTC)
- Reason
- Seems decently sharp and he's a pretty notable comedian. First attempt nominating a person, so, have at it I guess.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Jon Stewart
- FP category for this image
- People: Entertainment
- Creator
- Rubenstein on Flickr
- Support as nominator --I'ḏ♥One 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not bad, by any stretch of the imagination, but the lighting's a bit off, the pose/composition is awkward, and the background is a bit distracting (which is the point of adverts, I guess, but it doesn't help this picture). J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Seldom are these runway shots, where volunteer contributors are sharing space next to reporters shouting “Jon… OVER HERE”, examples of high-quality photography. The lighting is invariably from an on-camera strobe and there are no fill umbrella lights. Such is the case here. If Jon Stewart it to be on the Main Page for a day, a Featured Article might be better. But presenting this picture as somehow being high quality photography (via composition, lighting, etc.) doesn’t seem realistic. Greg L (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The photo was taken at a gala-type/black tie event, so I think there were probably many flashes going off at once from many cameras as far as the lighting. --I'ḏ♥One 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Having two strobes going off near-simultaneously is possible, but not likely. We’ve all seen news footage showing stars at a photo-op where rapid-fire strobes make a nearly stroboscopic effect. But even as rapidly as that happens, it typically max's out at around 10 to 15 flashes per second. And the fastest rates tend to be when stars are walking and waving so many photographers are trying to take a picture of the exact same moment (bingo wings flapping). Such is not the case here; Jon is standing still and posing so the rapidity of the strobes is probably more sedate. The odds are stacked well against two flashes going off within the 60th or even the 120th of a second at which modern cameras can strobe-sync. Moreover, the deep shadow to the right of Jon Stewart’s waist demonstrates that this image is wholly dominated by the single, on-camera strobe. And that (the result here of an on-camera strobe with no evidence of umbrella lights to fill in shadows) is what I based my opinion on. It is what it is: an on-camera strobe picture at a gala photo-op in front of a panel spammed with some for-profit corporation’s logotype. Do I find the totality of these shortcomings to be an example of eye-catching, fine photography? No. Greg L (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't nominate it out of the idea that it was spectacular photographic technique, it certainly isn't, I just thought it was an opportunity shot that came out very well. Half the time as far as celebrity photos that's all we can hope for. --I'ḏ♥One 20:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's true, and this is certainly better than most- but that doesn't mean we should be featuring it. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the flash pulse duration would be probably shorter than 1/2000th of a second for something like this. Sync speed is different - a camera shutter limitation rather than something representative of the flash speed. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was referring to the duration that the film (or digital sensor) is being exposed to all light from the lens. With most any decent SLR, one can set the exposure for maximum hand-held gain from ambient light, like 1/60th of a second. With old-fashioned film SLRs with focal-plane shutters, the maximum shutter speed at which one could strobe-synch was typically 1/60th of a second, or maybe as slow as 1/30th. Since 1/60th was around the slowest speed one could reliably shoot hand-held without motion blur, photographers would typically just go with the red “flash-sync” speed on the dial. The flash duration of the strobe might only be as you say: 1/2000th of a second. But the odds that two such flashes would be going off during the typical exposure time of 1/60th or 1/120th of a second is slim since at such an event—where the subject is standing still (unless Jon steward walks like that with his arms folded across his chest)—they would typically be going off at less that eight flashes per second. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- A Focal-plane shutter has a much shorter fully open duration than the shutter speed - you don't get anywhere near that much time for everything to line up. It'd be unusual to use anything but sync speed in these situations - it would artificially constrict your frame rate. It is a moot point though anyway, the additional flash would probably ruin the exposure. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. That’s my point. I used to own a Minolta SRT-101 back in the 70s. It was the most magnificently well-made, fine instrument I had ever owned or seen.
I was addressing a comment above where an voter opined …so I think there were probably many flashes going off at once from many cameras as far as the lighting.
Focal-plane shutters at short exposures have a slit passing across the film that gives each spot on the film an exposure of as little as 1⁄1000th of second. But the shortest possible duration that the entire film can be exposed (strobe-snc) was typically 1⁄60th of a second. At that speed, the instant the first curtain gets all the way across the film, the second curtain is being released. The strobe has to go off at that moment to illuminate the entire frame of film. And that (the slower, red-colored strobe-sync speed) was the one a photographer would typically use when shooting hand-held in order to not have blur in the image due to smeared ambient lighting.
Again, my point is that because when shooting with a strobe, one wants to have as much ambient fill light as possible to help fill in the shadows. So the best strategy is to set the shutter speed—regardless of the type of camera (digital or film) or capability of the camera—to about 1⁄60th, which is the slowest shutter speed one can reliably shoot hand-held without motion blur due to camera shaking and will thusly maximize ambient fill in shaddows.
And then the rest of my point is that in such a short duration (1⁄60th of a second), the odds of two different photographers’ strobes going off in such a situation (maybe 5 to 12 flashes per second) is slim. If Elvis came back to life and walked into Shea Stadium along a red carpet (or Lady Gaga kissed a female groupie on the mouth to (*sigh*) get into the headlines again), then the strobes would be going off fast enough that you have pretty decent odds of having an image that is being illuminated with other photographers’ strobes. Not so with Jon Stewart standing there with a bright red pimple on his right cheek with his arms folded across his chest. Greg L (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. That’s my point. I used to own a Minolta SRT-101 back in the 70s. It was the most magnificently well-made, fine instrument I had ever owned or seen.
- A Focal-plane shutter has a much shorter fully open duration than the shutter speed - you don't get anywhere near that much time for everything to line up. It'd be unusual to use anything but sync speed in these situations - it would artificially constrict your frame rate. It is a moot point though anyway, the additional flash would probably ruin the exposure. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was referring to the duration that the film (or digital sensor) is being exposed to all light from the lens. With most any decent SLR, one can set the exposure for maximum hand-held gain from ambient light, like 1/60th of a second. With old-fashioned film SLRs with focal-plane shutters, the maximum shutter speed at which one could strobe-synch was typically 1/60th of a second, or maybe as slow as 1/30th. Since 1/60th was around the slowest speed one could reliably shoot hand-held without motion blur, photographers would typically just go with the red “flash-sync” speed on the dial. The flash duration of the strobe might only be as you say: 1/2000th of a second. But the odds that two such flashes would be going off during the typical exposure time of 1/60th or 1/120th of a second is slim since at such an event—where the subject is standing still (unless Jon steward walks like that with his arms folded across his chest)—they would typically be going off at less that eight flashes per second. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the flash pulse duration would be probably shorter than 1/2000th of a second for something like this. Sync speed is different - a camera shutter limitation rather than something representative of the flash speed. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's true, and this is certainly better than most- but that doesn't mean we should be featuring it. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't nominate it out of the idea that it was spectacular photographic technique, it certainly isn't, I just thought it was an opportunity shot that came out very well. Half the time as far as celebrity photos that's all we can hope for. --I'ḏ♥One 20:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Having two strobes going off near-simultaneously is possible, but not likely. We’ve all seen news footage showing stars at a photo-op where rapid-fire strobes make a nearly stroboscopic effect. But even as rapidly as that happens, it typically max's out at around 10 to 15 flashes per second. And the fastest rates tend to be when stars are walking and waving so many photographers are trying to take a picture of the exact same moment (bingo wings flapping). Such is not the case here; Jon is standing still and posing so the rapidity of the strobes is probably more sedate. The odds are stacked well against two flashes going off within the 60th or even the 120th of a second at which modern cameras can strobe-sync. Moreover, the deep shadow to the right of Jon Stewart’s waist demonstrates that this image is wholly dominated by the single, on-camera strobe. And that (the result here of an on-camera strobe with no evidence of umbrella lights to fill in shadows) is what I based my opinion on. It is what it is: an on-camera strobe picture at a gala photo-op in front of a panel spammed with some for-profit corporation’s logotype. Do I find the totality of these shortcomings to be an example of eye-catching, fine photography? No. Greg L (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The photo was taken at a gala-type/black tie event, so I think there were probably many flashes going off at once from many cameras as far as the lighting. --I'ḏ♥One 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per above. Sasata (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - Per above. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per above and mostly for the shadows gazhiley.co.uk 13:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination May as well just close this up. --I'ḏ♥One 20:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Jujutacular talk 04:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
