Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling

Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2010 at 15:22:21 (UTC)

Original - Wedding procession of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling in an open carriage through Stockholm, June 19, 2010. The wedding was described as "Europe's biggest royal wedding since the Prince of Wales married Lady Diana Spencer in 1981."

Edit - Compare at full size to see colour improvements.

Reason: A Wikipedia photographer got accredited as part of the authorized press at the royal wedding and got some great shots. I think this one - currently the lead image in the wedding article - is the best one. A pity his hand is slightly over his face, but considering that this is a one-time-only event, I think it's a great photo.
Articles in which this image appears: Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling, Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, When You Tell the World You're Mine. A cropped version is also in Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland.
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty
Creator: commons:User:Prolineserver

Support as nominator --Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: I support the new edit, as I think the colors/brightness/contrast look better. I think it's not much of an objection to say that you don't care for the subject matter - we feature photos of many more trivial things (C-list actors, obscure species with tiny stub articles) than this. This wedding was clearly very important for a lot of people.... Both for entertainment/gossip reasons and because it triggered new debate about the continuing worth (or lack thereof) of the Swedish monarchy. As for the lighting, if it was an overcast day, it was an overcast day... Don't think there will be a chance to reshoot this one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, and wonderful composition. The bit of his hand in front his face doesn't really bother me at all. Jujutacular ^talk 16:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I had to scroll past this a half dozen times before I could figure out why I didn’t think it worthy of FP status. Two reasons: 1) it has drab lighting, and 2) it has a People magazine (celebrity) nature to the subject matter (wedding and all). I just think there are more encyclopedic / less gossipy subject matters than royals getting married. Greg L (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The wedding is very much worthy of encyclopedic coverage, and, if anything, this is more eye-catching because of its very "celebrity" nature. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wedding pictures are always eye-catching, and this one is quite well done for a glimpse at royalty. Canada Hky (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole royalty thing is actually a turn-off for me, so judging this just on it's photographic merits, it's poor lighting, they're not looking at the camera, background seems noisy (high iso @ 500), for 3.2mp (native for camera = 12.3mp) it does not have the sharpness and detail you would expect for a 75% reduction in size from the native size of the camera, probably means it's heavily cropped. All-in-all this does not add up to a feature-able picture. — raeky T 01:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree. This photo seems more “event-like” and I don’t think that is a great fit for POTD. Moreover, the overcast day (if this was outside, as it appears) makes this come up quite short of what I would consider “fine photography.” Greg L (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm not sure on if i support or oppose this one yet, however in reply to what you said Greg that doesn't strike me as making a lot of sense. Had this been a staged photograph, the judging of lighting is fine, but in what you have yourself described as an 'Event Photo' the photographer can do nothing about it being overcast at all, he's done what he can with the available light and shouldn't be judged on the weather. I mean it's not like another similar picture is going to come up thats not overcast is it? it's a one-chance photo so IMO with that in mind the weather is much less of an issue. JFitch (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I mean by “event”-like image is that it seems less like a formal or informal portrait of the individuals but more like “And next on ‘Extra,’ we have exclusive photos of the ♬♩Royal Wedding ♬♩. And after the commercial break, *yet another* way Lady Gaga got into the news this week by showing skin and kissing a female groupie.” It’s just my opinion, but it seems not fully encyclopedic. It’s a very nice picture and all. Clear. I find the Edit to be a distinct improvement. But I can think of other subject material that seems more encyclopedic and there are more outstanding implementations of technical photography out there. Greg L (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't disagree at all with what you just said, which is why i'm still unsure if I can support this. My comment was simply about judging pictures on things that were unavoidable, like overcast images on a once in a lifetime oppurtunity. JFitch (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, valid. The weather on the day is, equally, of interest to the article, so an image of a wedding in which the weather is overcast is neither a negative or a positive in and of itself, but if any image shows what the weather was like, then is a small positive. (I'm speaking generally here, not about this image as such.) J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit It looks regal to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Don't see the harm in having something a little "current events" once in a while. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit Looks good to me, well-captured moment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Royal Wedding Stockholm 2010-Slottsbacken-05 edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]