Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Russell Lee

Russell Lee

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2024 at 14:15:23 (UTC)

Original – Photographer Russell Lee, in about 1942.

Alt 1

Reason: Another in a series of photographs of photographers. There are a couple other options (e.g. File:Russell-Lee-FSA.jpg), but this one was by far the most widely used, and the one that looked the worst in the old version. I'd say the crop is fairly conservative: I didn't crop any of him (except maybe a few pixels at the bottom: edges aren't perfectly straight), but did take a smidgen more off the right to centre him, and cropped the weird... reflection? damage? intruding lights? at the top, which still has more than ample headspace. (Compare File:Portrait of Russell Lee, FSA (Farm Security Administration) photographer - Original.tif)
Articles in which this image appears: Russell Lee (photographer) +2
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information, restored by Adam Cuerden

Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 14:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Those out of focus areas aren't great for FP. Can you do something about that, Adam? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't go back to the 40s and reshoot it. Choices are either to crop or accept it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. But that out of focus areas really do bother me. It's an excellent shot with good EV. But since we don't have a time machine lying around in a hot tub to fix that focus issues, ~~Oppose~~. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, but, y'know, sharpening doesn't really work with film grain, and Charles would be here to oppose if I crop his legs out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A photo of a photographer ought to be perfect. Here, the focus in on his ears, not his eyes... --Janke | Talk 18:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald and Janke: How about the alt? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt - Yep, works for me now. Better. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 – Hamid Hassani (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Alt is quite fuzzy, too... --Janke | Talk 08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for the 30s/40s? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. There are some much sharper studio portraits from decades earlier, many of them seen here at FPC... Here, too, the focus seems to be in the wrong place. The eyes need to be in perfect focus, even if the Depth of field is shallow. --Janke | Talk 20:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decades earlier was a very different camera technology. The increase in film speed was met with a decrease in focus for a while. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 00:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in both these photos I see a focusing error. A grainy photo can also be sharp. --Janke | Talk 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I suspect there's somewhat of an issue in the 40s of them knowing what images were being used for. No need to get an amazing perfect focus in an image that's never going to be seen bigger than about 6" (15cm) tall at most, or is going to be halftone printed. 1910-1950 is kind of a nadir of photography, so I'd say the second, especially, is decent for the era. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 12:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aiming for mediocrity??? ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]