Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obama official portrait

Obama official portrait edit

Original - Barack Obama's official portrait is as the first United States Presidential Portrait taken with a digital camera.

Reason: Absolutely fantastic portrait
Articles this image appears in: Barack Obama, President of the United States, etc. etc.
Creator: Pete Souza, the newly-announced official White House photographer

Support as nominator --Cacophony (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but more contextz should be added on the image page (e.g., the caption trivia and the fact that it was taken on the same day Pete Souza was announced as White House photographer).--ragesoss (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that we already have this featured picture of Obama.--ragesoss (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was taken before he became President-elect, and is not an official portrait. I think they both have their merits. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 11:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one also has terrible lighting and expression. Its promotion received significant opposition and seems to have been a case of "best we have for now." This one is of far better quality; to have File:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg featured but not this one would just seem madness to me. What qualities does featured image File:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg possess that this image lacks? I see none, and in fact see a much better image here. TAway (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

Are the white specks on his right shoulder and lapel lint, or is there something wrong with the photo?
At least he trimmed his nose-hairs this time, but someone should have told him to trim his ear-hairs too. There's a forest in his right ear! I suppose the people who were bothered about the nose hairs at the other Obama FPC will want his ear hairs edited out too, but that doesn't bother me. Since I'm pretty new to FPC, do we go around giving people haircuts when they have bedhead? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't/shouldn't make changes that would affect the accuracy of the original image. We would only make changes that fix faults in the reproduction of the scene (colour balance if necessary, remove spots/dust if scanned etc). None of this would likely apply to this image. As far as I can tell, all of the 'faults' you mentioned were part of the reality of the scene at the time and therefore there is no need to fix them. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I really wasn't sure about the faults, so that's fine. I'm also fine with leaving in the stray earhairs Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't promote. What makes this portrait any more special than any other ~~bureaucrat~~ politician picture? Nothing I can see. The fact that he is off center in the picture is somewhat distracting, IMHO. Kelly ^hi! 07:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every bureaucrat is the soon-to-be President of the United States, though. Doesn't that make it somewhat more notable than average bureaucrat's portrait? That last comment also makes you seem a bit ignorant of traditional studio portraiture. You might find it distracting, and that is your perogative, but it is very orthodox framing also used in every other presidential portrait, just as an example. Finally, the lingo is Oppose and Support, not Don't promote and Promote. Just a heads up. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's not re-enact the chimpanzee ladder here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, lets re-write the book on portrait photography. The links I provided were to demonstrate consistency, but I wasn't trying to imply that it was the only way a portrait could be taken. It certain is a orthodox style of portrait though, as I said. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was just trying to point out that if he wants to say "don't promote", that's just fine. I believe the intention is clear. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Regarding off center composition, see rule of thirds. Durova^Charge! 15:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rule of thirds is a statement about how to make an image subjectively more visually interesting, not about its encyclopaedic value. I've noticed that we crop a lot of images to center the subject. Why should Obama be any different? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The first two portraits you linked have the subject far closer to the center of the image, while the other two have a reasonable amount of background to the subject's right, as opposed to this picture looking like there was something unpleasant to Obama's right so they just cropped the photo. And as for lingo, this isn't a parliament or a court and so use of a specific word to indicate one's opinion isn't necessary. If someone wants to use 'support/oppose', 'promote/don't promote', 'yes/no' then all of these are fine because all that an admin requires for determining consensus is a clear indication of what the person's opinion is. Cynical (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As long as we're on the subject of lingo, Barack Obama is not a bureaucrat, he's a politican and elected official of the legislative branch. Unlike elected officials, bureaucrats have stable lineal careers, usually within an agency. Elected officials and entire governments may change, though the agencies and their bureaucrats remain. --Bridgecross (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I changed "bureaucrat" to "politician". Kelly ^hi! 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I completely agree with Diliff and Durova here. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - high quality picture of a very important man. Good composition, flattering, high technical quality and released under a license I'm thrilled to see Obama's administration fully supporting. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 11:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it is specifically Obama's administration that is fully supporting the free license thing... All works of the US Government are released into the public domain, aren't they? George W Bush's portrait license says "This image is a work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.". Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interestingly however this image is under a Creative Commons license. Fletcher (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah I did notice that, but I'm fairly sure that it will also be Public Domain by default, which is the less restrictive license. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - From what I understand, Obama's transition website, change.gov (which is not really a government website despite its domain name) has placed its material under the Creative Commons license. Once the photographer actually takes his place in the White House bureaucracy, his official work will fall into the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 04:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose subject of the photograph isn't in the centre (or even near the centre) of the frame, making the picture appear as if part has been cut off at the right hand side. I know it hasn't (since this is a direct copy of the official release), but it is still off-putting enough that 'high technical standard' (#1 in the criteria) is questionable. Yes, other portraits have the subject off-center, but those that do (such as of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, linked above) do so in a way that doesn't distract the viewer and immediately draw attention to the composition, rather than the subject. Cynical (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Either of the 'other versions' listed (according to filenames they're different photos taken at the same time, for posters?) would be preferable to this image as they lack the distracting composition. Cynical (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wonderfully composed portrait (putting the subject off-center is a good thing in my mind, it's more visually appealing), good use of depth of field. Colors are well used to and tie it together. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image, and obviously encyclopedic. --Chasingsol ^(talk) 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I'm not an Obama supporter, but this photo is definitely very excellent. It should deservedly be featured. Jason (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic image; very timely. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photograph; it depicts an authoritative, handsome, important man. It's probably the best Obama portrait out there, and certainly the one of the highest resolution. aristotle1990 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I'll grant the objections to the composition are pretty weak; if you check the Commons gallery it seems in line with traditional presidential portraiture. However the plain white background looks almost clinical to me (other portraits use a darker background, if plain, or they use texture such as bookshelves, or even a window in JFK's portrait). There are also bad looking octagonal reflections in his irises, which must be from the strobes. It is common for reflections to appear in the iris, but they don't usually look so well defined. He's one of the most photographed people in the world so it should be possible to get a better one sometime. Fletcher (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Its a great photo, but per Kelly I don't see anything special about it. Perhaps if there was emphasis on the highest quality ever because its the first digital pic or something, but other than that I don't see anything special to it. The centering is not important to me. - A.J. (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.J. -- mcshadypl ^T^C 06:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's just the official portrait of a U.S. President. I don't see why this one should be a featured picture when none of these pictures are featured pictures. They all look basically the same. OCNative (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those pictures come anywhere near the high technical standard of this one. Please look at them at full resolution. All are very noisy and lack sharpness. Cacophony (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how about this one, this one or this one? OCNative (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at those and browsing around Category:Politicians_of_the_United_States, I'm now completely convinced that this is the highest quality political portrait available on Wikipedia. With the abundance of photos available I think we need far more than 18 political FPs. I welcome you to nominate some. Cacophony (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nothing special. Too much space above the head, and background is too clinical. TheCoffee (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the encyclopedic value is high as shown by the number of articles it is used in, this is also of high technical quality unlike the many of the other political portraits Thisglad (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the formality of this image makes it a far better featured picture than the current one. If this nomination succeeds, will it be used as the FP on Inauguration Day? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support on basis of its high technical standards: amazing per-pixel clarity even when blown up compared to previous presidential portraits. Uris (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Very good picture. Chasesboys (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice detail at full resolution, but I still find it boring compared to File:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg, which is already featured. There is nothing all that special about it. I don't think it's very Encyclopedic either; there is nothing in this image that any other good portrait photograph of him cannot do. Also feel it fails WP:FL? Criterion 5, Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. It doesn't do this any more than any other Barack photograph. Might be better at commons:COM:FP Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just a posed portrait, no matter how good the quality of the photo. The Terminator (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Being a portrait does not disqualify a high-quality, high-resolution image from being featured. Like was said above: "Good composition, flattering, high technical quality." I don't see any real argument against this from the "oppose" votes. TAway (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about "flattering", but it is interesting how the photographer used shadows to partially disguise Obama's nose-mole. On Obama's Senate portrait, we kept having problems with people photoshopping out the mole (see the file history). Maybe this photographer has hit upon a way to prevent that. Kelly ^hi! 06:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well several of the oppose 'votes' above note that, in their opinion, the composition is poor and distracts from what is otherwise a good image. Cynical (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. The President-Elect of the United States' Official Portrait is pretty big, seeing as to how this is the official portrait of the soon-to-be most powerful man in the world. Armyrifle (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is about the quality/desirability of the image, not its subject. Cynical (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nomination sure gets more votes than a typical FPC --Muhammad(talk) 15:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sure does. Fascinating. I'd better hurry and upload a fourteenth century navigational chart. Maybe they'll stick around and review it. ;) Durova^Charge! 19:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or perhaps one of our photos of Sarah Palin. :) Kelly ^hi! 19:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why, because so many photos of Palin exist that meet these high technical standards? None on Wikipedia or Commons do, not even close. Omnibus (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Obama's right half (looking at the suit) is a bit out of focus and unsharp (an indistict DOF), and his left shoulder is cut-off. With so many pictures of Obama, certainly we can find one that isn't cut-off. Spencer^T♦^C 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The picture is not centered. --Eustress (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ...and portrait photography is supposed to feature a centered subject, right? Omnibus (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Michael Shaw explains why it's a good portrait. Lampman (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As much a fan of President-Elect Obama as I am, I fear this nomination and many of the support votes exist primarily becase of the subject of the photo, rather than its worthiness as a featured picture. Senatedems (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't think any of the opposition votes exist primarily because of the subject of the photo? We are voting on the merits of this particular photograph but it is inevitable that some voters allow political bias to affect their vote. Kinda like real life, dontchathink? We have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt though. Cacophony (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the !votes seem clearly biased one way or the other and should be disregarded. (That's why they're !votes; if you can't follow the criteria your opinion doesn't count.) I don't envy the closer. Fletcher (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support As someone who strongly dislikes Obama, I still think that this is about as good a picture as we're likely to get (I mean, hey, its an official presidential portrait, after all). ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just the fact that it is the first digitally taken portrait of a (soon to be) president should be enough. But it also got a wonderful composition, rule of thirds followed, nice contrast, good resolution etc. etc. Matthias.koetter (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per criterion #3 - I don't believe holding out an official portrait created by someone else as the best Wikipedia has to offer is a very good idea. Also, there's no binding precedents on Wikipedia, but even so, I don't like the precedent. File:George-W-Bush.jpeg, File:Bill Clinton.jpg, File:Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981.jpg, File:Jimmy Carter.jpg, File:Richard Nixon - Official Portrait (1969).jpeg, etc, are nice pictures as well and I don't know that having featured pictures be a referendum on how popular a President was is a good idea. Bush, Sr and Ford are omitted from the list not because I didn't like them, but because their pictures are terrible. --B (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several other users have already pointed out that the technical quality of those photos is nowhere near the quality of this one. In fact, George W. Bush's portrait was itself a FPC in 2007 but failed for almost entirely technical reasons. Were that picture as high-quality as this one it probably would have passed. Flyerdog11 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Bad lighting prevents detail in the iris. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He isn't the president yet, so I can't see how this is his "official" presidential portrait, and the blurring of the flag in the background looks awful, isn't particularly high resolution, and as above, the lighting detail in the iris "IS" bad. --Pstanton 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Comment In what way does the blurring of the background "look awful"? And I assume you'll strike through your original complaint that begins with "he isn't the president yet" once he becomes President? Lastly, the resolution is very good, and better than all previous Presidential portraits. Omnibus (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I read it, Pstanton was expressing doubt that this could be the official presidential portrait, since at the time it was taken he was not president, so the complaint would be independent of whether Obama is going to be president at a later date. On the basis of Pstanton's comment, it would seem to be more correct that this is the official president-elect's portrait. Perhaps the official nomenclature is lacking in rigour on this point? After re-reading the caption, I took the liberty to correct an apparent substitution of "is" for "as". Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alephalpha (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Ticks all the EV and image quality boxes. It lacks ever-so-slightly in wow, but it makes up for that in spades with importance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe this is a misguided nomination of an awkward and contrived portrait. The only recommendation is the subject, which seems to have swayed the majority of !votes, its only redeeming feature being the high resolution of the camera used. In all seriousness, I've never seen so many courtier's comments on FPC. Since when was the use of a digital camera sufficient grounds for Featured Picture promotion? Composition isn't only unbalanced, with disparate elements (subject, flags, white wall) forming a clumsy pastiche of previous presidential portraits, its slavish rule-of-thirds subject placement is wholly inappropriate and quite amateurish. The shoulders are too front-facing, making the left shoulder look "lost", the awkward white space between Obama and the flag draws the viewer's eye past Obama's right eye towards... nothing. It's so poor it barely warrants Valued Picture nomination, but given the subject perhaps retains just enough value for that. Please, try to see past the pixel count, through the lack of technique to the realisation that the President has no FP clothes at all... mikaul^talk 12:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, you sound more like a jaded art critic than an FPC voter, but fair enough, I respect your photographic experience on this one. I do think though, that whether you like the composition or not, this is very much in the style of all the other presidential portraits. They all have their own style (reflecting the photographer but also the decor and fashion of the day), but the general composition remains similar. Just as many good photographers cringe at the style of typical American senior yearbook portraits ;-), they are what they are, and within the bounds of that style there is still clearly good and bad photography. Likewise, within the bounds of what this photograph tries to be, it is a good portrait IMO. Out of interest, can you suggest an freely licensed 'official style' (not arty or informal) portrait of a politician or any other notable figure that is significantly better than this one? I'd just like to see exactly what you're looking for. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - <puts down pipe, strokes beard> I wasn't going to elaborate too much, just point out the formal reasons why this is a disaster of a formal portrait, but seeing as you ask... with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, almost any other US presidential portrait (given a suitable file) would be way preferable. The best comparison is probably the Reagan one, if only because the Obama one has obviously been based heavily on it. In Reagan's portrait, the President was photographed in time-honoured dignitary style. He's integrated with his surroundings, appears relaxed and assured, is positioned naturally with shoulders facing slightly into the frame, head slightly to one side, further "involving" him in the scene. Lighting is strong and direct (are you getting all these jaded art critic metaphors?) with backlighting to bring him forward, head close to the top of the frame to enhance apparent stature. Obama, by direct comparison, is a shrinking, isolated figure, with ordinary brolly-and-reflector lighting, facing front-on to the camera as if he were in a photo-booth, not the White House waiting room. Reagan was shot on film (of course) so it has grain at 100% (of course) so it would never impress those who equate high-resolution digital reproduction with technical expertise. But it's a vastly superior portrait from a photographic point of view and is much more deserving of FP status for the encyclopedia. You describe the ENC problem with this nomination exactly when you say within the bounds of what this photograph tries to be, it is a good portrait. That's not the point of FPC, surely, and actually not true, to boot. mikaul^talk 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (maybe Weak support?) Excellent technical quality, far far above previous presidential portraits. The composition irks me a bit, but I think the encyclopedic value and technical quality push it to FP level. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support after pondering for a long time. Quality IMO is quite good as expected of such a camera. Composition is not wrong, but I have seen many official pictures with a similar poses and I guess I now find it boring. This FP on the other hand has an interesting pose. --Muhammad(talk) 16:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it isn't a very interesting composition, but the other one you linked to has a completely different purpose. Can you imagine that being the official portrait of the President? :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He would look more like a prophet if that were his official portrait ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 13:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image with no faults that I can see. -- 82.24.37.103 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nudge, nudge...could you wonderful newcomers skim the rest of the FPC page please and review our other candidates? Durova^Charge! 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to echo earlier contributor's concerns about the composition - off center, cropped shoulders, indistinct DoF, etc. don't make up for it being a high-res photo. I would also caution all the new commenters (presumably coming from BO's article) that there's no rush to promote this image - he's gonna be around for at least 4 more years. I imagine one or two more pictures will be taken! Madcoverboy (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not much for close-ups of people, as they don't show much. There is another FP of a grey-bearded man, but at least he's talking. This doesn't inspire me, effect me, or spark any interest, despite my support of the subject as a candidate. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 01:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear EV. High quality photo. Seems like a pretty obvious FP to me. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very high quality --Church of emacs (Talk) 17:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strange crop on the right side. --Avala (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

I make 24 supports to 18 opposes, ignoring "strongs" and "weaks". I'm going to close as not promoted, and suggest that re-nominating it in a month might be a better idea, once we see what sort of images have become available.

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]