Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Kutia kondh woman 3.jpg

Kutia kondh woman

Reason: Technical quality, encyclopaedic value
Articles this image appears in: Adivasi, Khonds
Creator: PICQ, crop by Kitkatcrazy, edit by Samsara

Support as nominator: original edit or unedited; Oppose edit 1, which makes her skin look dry, and gives her an unhealthy appearance not present in the original. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova^Charge! 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original - Absolutely Oppose Promotion of Edit 1 - Beautiful. The blurred background really makes the face stand out and enhances the subject. This has a sensual softness that isn't present in edit one where the sharpness correction has made it harsh and less inviting. pschemp | talk 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~ need more people FPs. vlad§inger ^tlk 02:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, very well taken picture User:Smundra 04:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unedited. I noticed that this had been edited and went and looked at the original. I then noticed I preferred the original without the blurring done to the background, so I've put it up here as well as an option. My main area of preference is the loose bits of hair, mainly on top of her head, that have been blurred along with the background and thus look rather peculiar. If everyone else prefers the edited version though, then I'd go along with that. --jjron (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the file history, you'll see that the hair was actually not blurred *with* the background, but was given a much smaller blur (factor 30 smaller ;) ) later. You can verify this at Image:Kutia_kondh_woman_3.jpg#filehistory Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not that interested in checking through all the file histories to be honest, but I'll take your word for it. If that's right though, I'm wondering why you'd bother to blur the hair at all? The fact remains that it is blurrier than the original. --jjron (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you can show me how to perfectly cut a single hair out of an image without selecting each pixel individually and setting its opacity, and so that its anti-aliased areas match the background, I'll be very happy to hear from you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's an easy one: Don't blur the background! :-). Lycaon (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        [1] Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're the one who says you blurred the hair differently to the background, so I assumed that's what you'd done, and had control over the blur. As has been said here, the background didn't need artificial blurring anyway. --jjron (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think your problems of understanding derive from the fact that you haven't presumably walked in these shoes (have you?). Because I couldn't perfectly isolate the hair, I had to anti-alias (or to be precise, Gaussian blur) it. Or it would have looked like crap, trust me. If you'd been willing to compare the three uploaded edits, you might have understood all of this. I'm sorry that everything has to be served to you on a plate. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not spending my time picking through all the edits because I prefer the unedited version anyway. The blur was unnecessary. I've said it politely several times! --jjron (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And you're failing to acknowledge that the edit was a courtesy to another editor, who asked for it. Do you read at all? Samsara (FA • FP) 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I find your attitude and remarks rather offensive; it seems you are simply spoiling for a fight, as you have been doing recently with Fir. It seems that you are in fact mainly wanting to get your edit promoted here, rather than the photo itself. So let me be blunt - I don't give a damn why the edit was done, the unedited version is better. No further correspondence will be entered into. --jjron (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 It's a nice portrait in many respects - sharpness is very good. The "original" edit is fairly crude in the cutting out of the head from it's background. The blur too is largely unnecessary and is unnatural - nothing like the bokeh you get from a lens. Hence oppose original. --Fir0002 09:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If sharpness is already "very good", why did it need to be sharpened further? Your edit makes her skin dry up. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 and unedited per Fir. Oppose original Lycaon (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original For me, the background blurring gives more 'punch' to the face (figuratively speaking!) --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support any. de Bivort 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support any H92110 (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Is it safe to support? It's only a head shot.) Good picture, truly encyclopedic. Muhammad(talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to this? :-) --jjron (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess so :) Muhammad(talk) 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original The softer background gives the picture more depth; highlights her face more--Trounce (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support unedited version. Matt Deres (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Kutia kondh woman.JPG MER-C 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]