Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Petra Martic Portrait, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg

File:Petra Martic Portrait, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2013 at 20:57:24 (UTC)

Reason: It's a very high resolution (for a portrait) headshot of Petra Martić, a Croatian tennis player taken at the 2013 Wimbledon Championships. It's a natural and candid photo of her taken directly after her first round match. All the important details are in clear focus (you can even see the drops of sweat on her face). There's a little noise on her forehead under the hat but at reasonable viewing distances, this isn't an issue IMO.
Articles in which this image appears: Petra Martić
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I clicked on this to see the full size image and got a screen full of teeth. She needs to work on her flossing technique ;-). Very good. Colin°^Talk 22:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel bad for the poor girl, she had no idea she was going to be subjected to the critiques of FPC when she woke up that morning. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the sweat drops and the dental plaque. Sanyambahga (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI find this commentary off putting. I'd be inclined to fix that for her instead of subjecting her to ridicule. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get a toothbrush. I do kid, support. I imagine if I were to have played a professional tennis match, my oral hygiene would not be in a condition that I'd like Diliff pointing his camera at me, either. Cowtowner (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the ethics of digitally removing dental hygiene issues from the photo

It's not ethical to 'fix' any issues with her teeth digitally. In any case, she's not being personally subject to ridicule. Unless she actually visits her profile, clicks the picture and follows the link to the FPC page, she'll never know. It's a moot point and certainly less important to the discussion than potential digital manipulation of a subject. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my comment was simply that I got the sort of close-up view that typically only her boyfriend and dental hygienist experience. I do feel a bit bad that everyone is focussing on that. There's nothing wrong with her teeth. As for ethic of alteration, I don't think there's an ethical problem with cleaning a little food/stain -- would there be an issue if there was a distracting stain on her t-shirt? This is far less than the perfection alterations any studio or publicity shot might have done to it. -- Colin°^Talk 14:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is actually a stain/food on her teeth, it's discolouration of the tooth. I'm no expert on dental issues so I could be wrong, so I don't know precisely what's caused it. Yes, publicity shots might have been photoshopped to remove imperfections, and when someone is a 'product' in some way, I don't have a problem with FPs of them portrayed as such, but this is a photo of a tennis player in a natural environment, not a publicity shot, and there are different standards that we should expect. Her good looks are incidental and her imperfections are part of her reality. For that reason, I still think alterations would be unethical. It's not that I specifically want the photo to retain her dental imperfections, I just find it wrong to want to make the change in the first place. Reality should record imperfections along with beauty. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard should be only using images of identifiable people that don't lead to embarrassment. You want to make an embarrassing picture FP. That is unethical. Saying only she would find it that way is not a defence for violating someone's dignity. Anyone that opens that image, as the lead image in the article, will note the issues whether they are natural or not. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I want to make an embarrassing photo a FP, I said I don't want a photo which claims to show reality to be digitally manipulated. I also don't think it's up to someone else to decide what the subject might find embarrassing anyway. And where do we draw the line? Some people might find a mole embarrassing, some people would consider a mole to be a beauty spot and find it offensive that you'd want to digitally remove a feature of the face. She could well find her freckles more of an embarrassment than her teeth for all we know. Should we not feature a photo of a dwarf at all just in case they're embarrassed about their stature? I think we should let reality be reality, flaws and all. Wikipedia is not censored. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censored? Oh please, let's not get into flawed appeals to authority. I am not suggesting we avoid photos of this person. Just ones she might find embarrassing for reasonable reasons. I have checked online and there are many large sized images of her that don't show food and spittle in her teeth so the state you captured her in is obviously not natural at all. There is no compelling reason we need this particular picture of her and we certainly don't need to feature it. I think she would quite like this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Petra_Martic_1%2C_Wimbledon_2013_-_Diliff.jpg Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic we'd be fixing wrinkles, blemishes, scars and a whole gamut of other "embarrassments". That's not how this works. Cowtowner (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because all those things you identify would be natural. Would we accept this image as FP if she had a booger hanging out her nose? That you can't see the difference between someone having gunk in their teeth and a mole is puzzling. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But as I already said earlier, I don't think think it is gunk in her teeth - it's a discolouration of the tooth itself. Maybe due to bad dental hygene, maybe a crack in the tooth, maybe root canal work. I really don't know, but I know it's not gunk. That you can't see it is equally puzzling. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and I pointed out there are plenty of pictures without gunk in her teeth. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, including this one, because there is no gunk in her teeth. You can see the same discolouration in her teeth in this photo. Show me a high resolution photo that shows her teeth clearly which doesn't have the same dental issues. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The front tooth was obviously repaired and is now becoming discoloured. I wasn't focused on that. Regardless, this is less in your face about it and the gunk and spittle between her other teeth is absent. http://www.novilist.hr/var/novilist/storage/images/sport/ostali-sportovi/tenis/petra-martic-59./2082973-1-cro-HR/Petra-Martic-59..jpg Even if it all tuned out to be tooth plaques I still fail to see the need to provide that kind of embarrassing detail. No one but Jeremy Clarkson would prefer to see teeth like that. See now you made her embarrased about her teeth. http://www.novilist.hr/var/novilist/storage/images/sport/ostali-sportovi/tenis/petra-martic-ispala-u-1.-kolu-roland-garrosa/2798679-1-cro-HR/Petra-Martic-ispala-u-1.-kolu-Roland-Garrosa.jpg Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, why not move this to the talk page to avoid clogging up the nominations page? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've collapsed the discussion beyond the votes. Saffron, if you want to take it further, you can comment on my talk page, but we're clearly going around in circles here and I'd prefer to let the community decide whether it's appropriate. So far, you're the only one who is objecting. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had my say. I fail to see the merit in squelching my opinion on the matter as it is not a tangential issue and the fact that there is only one such opinion is irrelevant. This issue is actually quite topical on Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people/Update_2013/Moral_issues Moreover, if I wanted to take it further I wouldn't need your instruction as to where to take it. Frankly your action here would give many the appearance of a conflict of interest. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic portrait. Great work. Jujutacular (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice job, Diliff. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ as it meets criteria. Great image. On the context of her dental hygiene, I would just point everyone to WP:MUG. The discussion on whether or not this image should be used should be held in her article's talk page. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my vote while I think about the edit. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, made up my mind. Oppose original due to shadows on eyes, and Oppose Edit due to aggressive Noise Reduction. I Support the downsampled edit.--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very detailed, but the lighting is poor and could have been easily fixed with fill flash. It is way too dark around the eyes and forehead. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's like saying your bird photos aren't detailed enough because you didn't get close enough and had to crop it, so therefore you should have used a bigger lens. ;) This was not a planned, posed portrait - it was taken at a sporting event and flash photography is not allowed. Sometimes you have to deal with the conditions as they are, not as you'd like them to be ideally. I don't think the darkness around the eyes and forehead is a dealbreaker anyway. It's normal for caps to shade the eyes. You can still see the detail and colour of the eyes and there's a subtle transition due to the diffused overcast lighting. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A selective shadows adjustment in that area gives good results. --Muhammad(talk) 15:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you show an example? The image already has lifted shadows, hence the noise... Any more and I thought the noise levels were unacceptable but I suppose selective noise reduction could also be applied after lifting further. In any case, I still think the shadows under the cap are not excessive... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sample edit uploaded. Personally though, the shadows are not a problem for me either --Muhammad(talk) 00:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit The lighting fix really makes a big difference. upstate NYer 02:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The edit itself is drastically reduced in size for sample purposes, but I would support an edit. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think if the full resolution sample edit image was uploaded, you'd really see just how bad the noise is in the shadows though. It was already at the limit of what I'd call acceptable, but lifting it further just doesn't work IMO. I've done a similar thing to what Muhammad has done and at 100%, the noise is just awful and uncorrectable (it becomes banded and blobby, as most shadows do when approaching the lowest values the sensor could capture). Muhammad has done a good job but he's hidden the noise considerably by downsampling it. So the question is, do we want a portrait with shadow adjustment just barely at the minimum resolution, or do we want the full resolution version with heavier shadows...? I don't think we can have both resolution and lighter shadows, realistically. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this case the down sampling is well justified and the need for the full resolution is debatable. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see why downsampling is "well justified" unless we're back to the teeth thing again. Thanks Muhammad for uploading the high-rez. I compared the two. While I really like the lightened shadows, I'm not a fan of the amount of noise reduction. Maybe a compromise between the two—less brightness, but less NR. I'll stick with my original vote though. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Down sampled justified if necessary to eliminate the noise. Concur with assessment of too aggressive NR in the full res. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
High res edit uploaded over the old edit. --Muhammad(talk) 13:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Though at thumbnail size it looks better, the NR is too strong in the edit. I'm torn. Not sure what is more important, if less shadow or higher res... Will think about this. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - After some thinking, I've decided the downsampled edit is probably the best of what we've seen, and have changed my vote accordingly. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support any version --Muhammad(talk) 19:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose edit the NR is too strong and the lightening too much and not even -- if you want to simulate the effect of a fill-light, then her neck needs lightened too. Her forehead is just a bit too light now. But also importantly, the colourspace has changed form sRGB to AdobeRGB, which should never be used for JPGs on the internet. If you want to use AdobeRGB, use it for tiffs when sending files to a print lab and nowhere else. It will nearly always produce the wrong colours for people with dumb browsers/tablets and will produce colour banding for everyone else. Colin°^Talk 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Petra Martic Portrait, Wimbledon 2013 - Diliff.jpg -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original is the only one with a clear consensus for it; consensus seems to be against the edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]