Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Josefina with Bokeh

Josefina with Bokeh

Bokeh on a photo shot with f/1.2 aperture

This picture beautifully illustrates the bokeh effect produced by large apertures in out-of-focus areas. Readded nomination because the author has changed the license to BY. The original nomination was closed because the license was non-free.

Nominate and support. - – ∅ (∅), 13:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't yet decided whether to support or oppose this one. It does help demonstrate the concept of bokeh, but some of the out-of-focus highlights are blown. That's not such a big deal, and I might just overlook it... but I'm vaguely uncomfortable with the idea of featuring a picture of a person who isn't a public figure. It may be used to demonstrate the concept of bokeh, but the subject is clearly not the bokeh. I think I would prefer something more "encyclopedic" for the task of illustrating bokeh.-- moondigger 03:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. I don't like the subject myself (and the shadow from the front facing fill flash kills me), but I don't think I'd oppose because of it. I'm glad to see that the image is now free content :). As far as the blown highlights go, there is an advantage: You can clearly see the shape of the aperture. Compare to the picture I added on bokeh. --Gmaxwell 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the shape of the aperture in this particular case is round, given that it's an f/1.2 lens used wide open. I'm not sure that'd be all that obvious to somebody unfamiliar with the lens or the concept of bokeh who was looking at this picture. Some of the highlights look elliptical... However my greater concern is the idea of featuring this particular subject. After thinking about it, I've decided to oppose. == moondigger 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The highlights become elliptical due to the effective shape of the aperture being angle dependent on the angle of the passing light because the aperture is not infinitely thin and the angles involved are fairly great, i.e. it's a case of true optical vignetting. In any case the article would benefit more from a good/bad comparison. --Gmaxwell 23:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you uncomfortable with the subject because she is a child? --Oldak Quill 11:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if your question was directed at me, but in case it was... I'm uncomfortable with the idea of having a featured picture in which the main subject is not a public figure, no matter whether a child or an adult. Has the subject (or her guardian) signed a release form to allow free commercial use of this image? Would the subject or her guardian be unhappy to find this image in a print ad for a commercial product? What if that product was something they might find objectionable?-- moondigger 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above discussion. -- moondigger 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would it be inappropriate to question whether someone is trying to slip a family picture in on us? --Philopedia 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have to admit the girl is really cute though (please dont take this comment seriously).Nnfolz 19:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Works for me! Love the bokeh --Fir0002 09:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking image, fantastic compostion (and no, I am not related to the girl in the photo). Morganfitzp 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Very nice image. However, for FP status, dont we all want pictures that are the best of the best, not just what we had to settle for. Thanks. AJ24 02:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]