Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Delphine Chanéac

French actress Delphine Chanéac

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2013 at 05:46:44 (UTC)

Original – Portrait of French actress Delphine Chanéac

Reason: High resolution, gorgeous black and white image of the French actress and model, Delphine Chanéac. I hope I can be forgiven, but I am shamelessly lifting this idea from Peregrine Fisher who proposed a nomination on the FP talk page in June 2010; it was suggested the image could be cleaned up a bit, and I went ahead and did that. I thought this was a "film" photograph, but it was originally a digital, color shot (unfree and private), and the noise was extreme, so my work consisted of denoising, along with a few other adjustments listed in the description. My crop is the exact same width as Peregrine Fisher's, but taller for breathing room and to keep rule-of-thirds / mise-en-scène a bit more balanced. I replaced the otherwise-stable image in the article. Hope I increased the estimated 40% chance of this image passing!
Articles in which this image appears: Delphine Chanéac
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
Creator: Benoît Derrier, photographer; Peregrine Fisher, original finder/uploader; Keraunoscopia, derivative

Support as nominator --– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately it's black-and-white. A good photo of Subcomandante Marcos did not pass for the same reason some time ago. There's a nice film noir feel here though. Brandmeister^talk 08:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- B&W is frowned upon here? If that's true, that's a shame. I was curious, so I went through Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment and found B&W images of people alive during color photograph days, like Armstrong and Heston. This image pops as B&W, the color version is, in my very humble opinion, boring. Well, here's hoping... – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Postscript — I just checked out the Marcos image. No one mentioned its <1500 pixels side, but the b&w and shallow focus seemed to be why it failed, though not many people participated, which is a shame. I have an image that's <1500 that I may risk here someday. One never knows. But I really hope Crisco 1492's comment "Low EV from being black and white" isn't a truth. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's FP File:Mark Harmon 1 edit1.jpg, b&w, photographed in 2005, the most recent I can find that had one oppose because it was B&W, one supporting "black and white is ideal, and I prefer it over colour photography for portraits", and one supporting "I agree btw that black and white is definitely better than color for this type of shot". By "type of shot", I assume Cat-five meant a professional head shot, but why wouldn't the same image in color not be better? I think what I'm proving to myself here is it boils down to opinion, and I think the B&W gives this image an almost-Truffaut/Godard feeling. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Modern B&W style generally reduces EV by not showing eye color, hair color and skin shade in particular (and also gives a false impression that the photo is from 1940s or so), but in this case I don't oppose due to aforementioned Bogart-like film noir effect... and Delphine herself, of course :) Brandmeister^talk 19:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, the color version is unattainable and unfree, so this is the best we have at any rate. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't love this picture, and I don't love digital B&W, but I feel obliged to say that the notion that B&W undercuts EV is ridiculous. All images show some stuff and not others, due in part to aesthetic criteria. Obviously a photo of a bird in black and white would be less valuable because color is used for identification, just as a photo of a bird that cut off its feet would be less valuable; neither applies to a portrait of a person. I'm frankly kind of insulted, as a current B&W film photographer, at Brandmeister's assertion that B&W "gives a false impression that the photo is from the 1940s"; it does nothing of the sort. The votes that objected to the Marcos picture being black and white were not definitive; the real issue with that picture, as I said on the nomination at the time, was that the depth of field was too shallow. Chick Bowen 22:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, that's weak support if we're keeping score. Chick Bowen 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Chick Bowen! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Chick Bowen. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've through long and hard about this image. While the B&W does enhance the image's artistic appeal, I do agree with the argument that it does somewhat reduce the EV of a portrait, as the eye color, hair color, and skin tone are technically inaccurate. I'm also a little put off by the cigarette hanging out of her mouth. It's not so much the fact the cigarette is there (though I do find it somewhat distracting) but the way it makes her mouth contort into an unnatural looking shape. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think she's "modeling" for the camera; that's what she does. :) Still, I appreciate the honest feedback! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rreagan007. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright. I contacted the original photographer last week (during the above conversations) and haven't heard back from him. I won't be able to obtain the color version, unfortunately. Ah well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]