Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Patti Smith performing in Finland

Patti Smith performing in Finland

Patti Smith performing at Provinssirock festival, Seinäjoki, Finland, June 16, 2007

Reason: Good shot, and is already featured on the Commons.
Articles this image appears in: Patti Smith, Provinssirock, Concert, List of female rock singers
Creator: Beni Köhler

Support as nominator The Watusi (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great concert portrait.... Play Freebird! de Bivort 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova^Charge! 16:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose B&W -Why is it in B&W? Does the color version still exist? Cacophony (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's available only in b&w --The Watusi (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, why? As creator, why is an image from 2007 "available only in b&w"? --jjron (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, the Commons nom says the creator is Skit ineb, the image page says it's Beni Köhler, and you're claiming it's you. What the heck is going on? --jjron (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, Beni Köhler is creator. fixed.

The photo is only available in BW because I chose to do a conversion from the color version, which in my opinion did not work very well. I don't know what you are talking about uncertain origin, It is shot by me, Beni Köhler, at Provinssirock in 2007 in Seinäjoki, Finland. There are no details blown out in the hilights in the face, i made sure of that while doing the conversion, as for composition, that is a matter of what looks good to you. --skit_ineb (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I meant by uncertain origin is pretty clear when I've listed three separate names that were down as 'creator'. FWIW, you may not be aware of this, but Single-purpose accounts like this (edit history) are also regarded as somewhat suspicious until the user has proved themself. --jjron (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No reason for B&W, extremely harsh lighting on singer's face blowing out details, uncertain origin of photo, and personally I don't like the composition. --jjron (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per jjron. Clegs (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Punk is not dead --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per jjron. Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the B&W only minimally detracts from the encyc. and probably greatly helps the artistic side. It shows an historic and encyclopedic person doing what they're famous for. Matt Deres (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think the B&W is being used to attempt to cover up obvious problems? --jjron (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose it could be, but if the problems are covered, then I'm not too worried about them :-). B&W photography, especially for artistic portraits, is a common enough standard. In this particular case, I think the textures brought out by the B&W are more interesting than the lost colours. In contrast, our "unnecessarily" B&W portrait FP of Golda Meir I find to be quite flat and bland. Matt Deres (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Screams punk-poet. Lighting and B&W only serve to draw you to her face- Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I went back and forth on this one-- on the one hand, it's a very expressive photograph; on the other, we're looking up at her chin. But this image is featured and has a lot in common with it; if McCoy Tyner is featured then I think this photo deserves it too. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting; I actually think you may have found a pretty strong candidate for delisting there - size, composition, etc. The "it's no worse than this one" argument isn't particularly strong regardless. --jjron (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with jjron here. The Tyner picture wouldn't even make it past PPR b/c of the size requirements and noise. Saying that this picture is no worse is a very weak reason to support it. Clegs (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per jjron. Very harsh lighting. Spencer^T♦^C 02:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 04:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]