Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cato June

Cato June[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 00:29:33 (UTC)

Reason: This is a high EV image. The quality is pretty good with even small print on the jersey being completely legible at full resolution. It could be sharper, but although we can get another photo of this guy, we can't get one for a Super Bowl champion that he was the defensive leader for.
Articles in which this image appears: Cato June
2006 Indianapolis Colts season
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Sport
Creator: Michael D Collins (flickr user fanphin)

Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not comfortable with the use of the large, copyrighted logo at the top of the image. I am not confident that it would be considered de minimis, and so not confident that the image could be considered free while it is still there. J Milburn (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can crop it out, but that would totally change the composition of the image, which is in large part valuable for being taken at the Super Bowl. Isn't that just common press conference background board (although larger font than usual).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may or may not be- it doesn't mean that it's free to use. It's copyrighted, and it's a major part of the image- as you say, the image would be completely different without it. That very fact should be enough to set off alarm bells. J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is why I'm going bot crazy. Tony, can you offer any additional support as to how this picture doesn't violate Wiki copyright laws? (hint: It is classified like this but try contacting the original photographer because they might be able to offer you advice.) Gut Monk (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What on Earth are you talking about? J Milburn (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Clear up the copyright in this or the next nomination and it has my full support. Gut Monk (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's bad composition as it is, his face is dead center which gives it WAY to much headroom, looks bad, the photographer probably did it so the logo was included, If it's cropped so the logo is cut in half, that makes it a better composition and does that clear up the copyright concern, it would also be possible to apply a Gaussian filter to mask out the logo even more if done correctly it would almost appear as if it's just a DOF out of focus and natural maybe? — raeky T 01:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Raeky concerning the composition. With the logo removed it looks too tight. The placement of the microphone is also too distracting. I'm sure that there are better pictures of him available. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 00:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per raeky. Greg L (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all comments so far. I feel the crop is actually a lot worse than the original. JFitch (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It may look worse, but it doesn't have copyright concerns. J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to it's FP possibility due to framing, as for the copyright, if it's an issue then it's not a difficult clone out, however as a picture overall I don't think it is anywhere near up to FP standard. JFitch (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all Gazhiley (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have nominated the original for deletion on Commons. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to try a left to right clone to erase the logo later.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had a little difficulty doing a seemless clone. Help would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Give me a sec, I'll try to smooth it out for ya. — raeky T 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Blurred it some to remove the hard lines your cloning added, looks ok now I think. — raeky T 12:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I thought you might want to crop it for your rule of thirds.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You can make the crop if you think it'd be used, and it's not MY rule. I'd cut the blue area over his head by about half, the other crop doesn't leave any head room. — raeky T 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I sorted the cropping out and one other small issue in the BG. JFitch (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I personally don't like square images. I prefer 4:3 or 3:2. I prefer the other edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree in principal. The original framing however in the original was pretty terrible, so whatever we do to it isn't going to do a lot to help it. I'm not trying to push that edit as a FP, I was just simply cropping it so that it was more technically correct than the above version. JFitch (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I just cropped it to 4:3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]